quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Sounds great to me. Gridlock = win win for taxpayers. I hope the dems do the same if they are ever in the minority again.

Paying for gridlock is win win?

Shakka- why do you even bother? Remember: dissent was patriotic when the Democrats did everything in their power to stomp out whatever Bush tried to do. Now it's just obstructionism. The PEOPLE in overwhelming majorities on Healthcare, Cap and Trade, etc. do not support these measures being rammed down their throat. THEY have said no- have the Dems forgotten about what the people want? (rhetorical).

But as to your original post, you can always count on Joe Biden to come through.

Here are a few more examples that illustrate the hypocricy that is so hilarious with this "reconciliation" idea (which they called "the nuclear option" in 2005 for whatever reason). Look at all of them who were hardcore anti-reconciliation when Bush wanted to use 51 votes for judicial appointments (the Democrats wanted to change it to 60 even though 51 was always the procedure for judges). This is too funny to even get mad about. I mean, LOOK at the blatant hypocricy! The one at the end is the best.

Obama 2005:

quote:

OBAMA APRIL 25, 2005: A change in the Senate rules that really, uh, I think would change the character of the Senate, uh, forever. [snip] Uhhh, and what I worry about would be th-th-that you essentially still have two chambers, the House and the Senate, but you have simply majoritarian, uhhh, absolute power on either side, and that's just not what the Founders intended.

So the founders didn't intend to do what Obama is now trying to do? LOL!


Hillary Clinton May 23, 2005:

quote:

So this president has come to the majority here in the Senate and basically said "Change the rules! Do it the way I want it done," and I guess there just weren't very many voices on the other side of the aisle that acted the way previous generations of senators have acted and said "Mr. President, we are with you, we support you, but that's a bridge too far. We can't go there. You have to restrain yourself, Mr. President."

CHUCK SCHUMER MAY 18, 2005:

quote:

We are on the precipice of a crisis, a constitutional crisis. The checks and balances which have been at the core of this republic are about to be evaporated by the nuclear option. The checks and balances which say that if you get 51% of the vote you don't get your way 100% of the time. It is amazing. It's almost a temper tantrum.

HARRY REID MAY 18, 2005:

quote:

Mr. President, the right to extended debate is never more important than the one party controls Congress and the White House. In these cases the filibuster serves as a check on power and preserves our limited government.

DIANNE FEINSTEIN MAY 18, 2005:

quote:

The nuclear option, if successful, will turn the Senate into a body that could have its rules broken at any time by a majority of senators unhappy with any position taken by the minority. It begins with judicial nomination, next will be executive appointments, and then legislation.

SENATOR JOE BIDEN MAY 23, 2005:

quote:

This nuclear option is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power. It is a fundamental power grab.

SENATOR HARRY REID MAY 18, 2005:

quote:

No, we are not going to follow the Senate rules. No! Because of the arrogance of power of this Republican administration.

SENATOR CHRIS DODD MAY 18, 2005:

quote:

(shouting) Why have two chambers? What were the framers thinking about 218 years ago? They understood, Mr. President, that there is a tyranny of the majority.

LOL!!!


SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN MAY 18, 2005:

quote:

If the Republican leadership insists on forcing the nuclear option, the Senate becomes, ipso facto, the House of Representatives where the majority rules supreme and the party in power can dominate and control the agenda with absolute power.

SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON MAY 23, 2005:

quote:

"You've got majority rule and then you have the Senate over here where people can slow things down where they can debate, where they have something called 'the filibuster.' Eh, you know it seems like it's a little less than efficient." Well that's right. It is. And deliberately designed to be so.

she's right, by the way


SENATOR JOE BIDEN MAY 23, 2005:

quote:

I say to my friends on the Republican side: You may own the field right now, but you won't own it forever, and I pray to God when the Democrats take back control we don't make the kind of naked power grab you are doing.

SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON MAY 23, 2005:

quote:

The Senate is being asked to turn itself inside out -- to ignore the precedent, to ignore the way our system has worked, the delicate balance that we have obtained that has kept this constitutional system going -- for immediate gratification of the present president.

I mean, you can't make this stuff up!!


SENATOR ROBERT BYRD APRIL 1, 2005:

quote:

For the temporary gain of a handful of out-of-the-mainstream judges, some in the Senate are ready to callously incinerate each senator's -- Each senator! Every senator's! -- right of extended debate. That is what the nuclear option seeks to do. Minorities have an illustrious past, full of suffering, torture, smear, and even death. Jesus Christ was killed by a majority. Columbus was smeared. Christians have been tortured.

Last edited by The17sss on Feb-25-2010 at 06:16

This just goes to show the Democrats shouldn't give a fuck about what Republicans think. They're in power and should damn well use it. If the Republicans don't like it, then get elected, ffs. Obama isn't going to win any friends by being "bi-partisan". I think this thread demonstrates that.

quote:

Originally posted by ziptnf Show me an instance where a republican has tried to make something productive happen during this administration that wasn't a ridiculous notion?

Sure. The Senate just passed a bi-partisan jobs creation bill.

quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Stalin This just goes to show the Democrats shouldn't give a fuck about what Republicans think. They're in power and should damn well use it. If the Republicans don't like it, then get elected, ffs. Obama isn't going to win any friends by being "bi-partisan". I think this thread demonstrates that.

You should be careful with language like this. There are many who are predicting that the makeup of congress could easily shift right back to a GOP majority this year. If that happens I hope you'll kindly shut the fuck up and not protest when/if someone says Republicans shouldn't give a fuck about what Democrats think and to do whatever they want. That is just piss poor politics and I hope that deep down you know that what you're saying is pointless, divisive, non-productive rhetoric.

Ah yes, and the few republicans that dared to vote with the dems on that one have been getting all kinds off hell from their own side since then.

What the republicans have done here is so demonize the democrats and their alleged liberal socialist comunist fashist agenda that even the slightest act of agreeing with the dems, even on a completely reasonable issue is enough that their base thinks that in doing so they are in essence joining with the devil.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Moongoose Ah yes, and the few republicans that dared to vote with the dems on that one have been getting all kinds off hell from their own side since then.

What does this have to do with the question? I'm not sure what you're getting at.

quote:

What the republicans have done here is so demonize the democrats and their alleged liberal socialist comunist fashist agenda that even the slightest act of agreeing with the dems, even on a completely reasonable issue is enough that their base thinks that in doing so they are in essence joining with the devil.

So wait...congressmen/congresswomen are elected by their constituents to represent them and pursue their wants/needs/desires/etc. Current healthcare proposals have rapidly diminishing/only marginal public support/approval at this point. It seems to me that Republicans are doing more to represent their base than Democrats are right now. No demonization necessary--most of the public isn't so stupid that they can't think for themselves. They know what's up.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-dems-...ounders-intent/ I love this shit. Politicians are all scum of the earth and they can't help but think that they are the solution to our problems. Great Biden quotes there... Biden: "I pray God when the Democrats take back control we don't make the kind of naked power grab you are doing."

*Sigh*

It would be worth a means of comparison and even a worthy discussion between what Dems. said then and now if we are actually comparing similar items here. The problem is Breibart is comparing apples to oranges, and I would contend he's doing it deliberately so to obfuscate the point.

The nuclear option that was depicted back in 2005 was a means of Republicans to change the Senate filibuster rule on a few particular judicial nominees that Democrats were blocking at that time. Forget the fact that Democrats allowed more judicial nominees of Bush to pass through many times over versus Republicans with Clinton nominees before, who blocked some 60 of his nominations through primarily committee process versus actual filibuster process, but I digress. But this nuclear option was in regards to changing a filibuster rule, and NOT related to the reconciliation process that a number of Democrats are thinking about using with the current health care bill. Not ONE of those quotes that is on Breibart's film, nor any of the quotes that 17sss dutifully compiled on Democrats at that time was in relation to using reconciliation.

And before you attempt to tell me how dangerous it is for Democrats to use reconciliation and that it is a similar weapon of sorts to the supposed nuclear option being discussed back in 2005, please reconcile with us first why Republicans used that very same tool to pass the Bush tax cuts in 2001, 2003, and the 2005 "Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act." It was also used to open up drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge:

http://mediamatters.org/research/200905110007

You may also note a number of Republicans supporting the reconciliation process in that link at that time.

So again, a means of passing parts of a bill through the gridlocked Senate by bypassing a filibuster (i.e. reconciliation), which has been performed by Republican Congress to pass Republican bills and has been supported by Republican members in the past is not equivalent to ending a filibuster altogether. But leave it to a liar like Breibart to deliberately confuse the two ideas for his readers/suckers.

BTW, will he ever release the full footage of the ACORN videos? Somehow I doubt that will ever happen. Can't imagine why.

Finally, I'm really interested in hearing a viable solution by Republicans that has been broken down by a nonpartisan group like the CBO that can demonstrate in any way how they can essentially stop or even lower annual premiums. In no way am I stating the Democratic plan is perfect, but they at least in both versions they have a means of addressing lowering or keeping premium costs relatively the same:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-premiums-and-/

Until the GOP has a viable answer to that from a nonpartisan group, please don't be surprised when Obama or most everyone else doesn't seemingly have much trust in the GOP adding much worthwhile to health care reform:

http://www.newsweek.com/media/84/1001_ftop_v2.pdf

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka You should be careful with language like this. There are many who are predicting that the makeup of congress could easily shift right back to a GOP majority this year. If that happens I hope you'll kindly shut the fuck up and not protest when/if someone says Republicans shouldn't give a fuck about what Democrats think and to do whatever they want.

The reason it would shift back is because the Democrats didn't have the spine to do what they were voted in for, and only that. If the Republicans are in power and do stuff I disagree with, I'll fucking yap my mouth until your head explodes, like you're doing now, I couldn't give a fuck. At least Bush had balls. Your threads only demonstrate that whatever the Democrats do, the right's primary objective is to obstruct as much as possible. Okay, well, fuck it, fuck "bi-partisanship". When you're in power, do your shit, when we're in power, we should be doing our shit. I applaud any measure to override the Republicans obstructionism.

quote:

That is just piss poor politics and I hope that deep down you know that what you're saying is pointless, divisive, non-productive rhetoric.

Every one of your threads is increasingly pointless, divisive, and non-production, so you really shouldn't even be talking. Example,your ridiculous thread about a children's book program being cut. Boo fucking hoo, evil democrats, oh noez!!!1 Ironic how it's you who want to cut deficits, knowing full well the children have public libraries to go to, but you complain about such a frivolous issue.

quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Stalin The reason it would shift back is because the Democrats didn't have the spine to do what they were voted in for, and only that. If the Republicans are in power and do stuff I disagree with, I'll fucking yap my mouth until your head explodes, like you're doing now, I couldn't give a fuck. At least Bush had balls. Your threads only demonstrate that whatever the Democrats do, the right's primary objective is to obstruct as much as possible. Okay, well, fuck it, fuck "bi-partisanship". When you're in power, do your shit, when we're in power, we should be doing our shit. I applaud any measure to override the Republicans obstructionism. Every one of your threads is increasingly pointless, divisive, and non-production, so you really shouldn't even be talking. Example,your ridiculous thread about a children's book program being cut. Boo fucking hoo, evil democrats, oh noez!!!1 Ironic how it's you who want to cut deficits, knowing full well the children have public libraries to go to, but you complain about such a frivolous issue.

I feel sorry for you. If they're so pointless, why do you even bother to respond to them? Do you have a life? Do you realize how silly you sound? Do you realize how obvious it is that I got under your skin and you're trying to come up with a witty, albeit witless dig at me? I could really care less.

I didn't realize that public libraries were equivalent to schools, complete with qualified teachers. Is that the best come back you have?

Last edited by Shakka on Feb-26-2010 at 02:10

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 *Sigh* It would be worth a means of comparison and even a worthy discussion between what Dems. said then and now if we are actually comparing similar items here. The problem is Breibart is comparing apples to oranges, and I would contend he's doing it deliberately so to obfuscate the point. The nuclear option that was depicted back in 2005 was a means of Republicans to change the Senate filibuster rule on a few particular judicial nominees that Democrats were blocking at that time. Forget the fact that Democrats allowed more judicial nominees of Bush to pass through many times over versus Republicans with Clinton nominees before, who blocked some 60 of his nominations through primarily committee process versus actual filibuster process, but I digress. But this nuclear option was in regards to changing a filibuster rule, and NOT related to the reconciliation process that a number of Democrats are thinking about using with the current health care bill. Not ONE of those quotes that is on Breibart's film, nor any of the quotes that 17sss dutifully compiled on Democrats at that time was in relation to using reconciliation. And before you attempt to tell me how dangerous it is for Democrats to use reconciliation and that it is a similar weapon of sorts to the supposed nuclear option being discussed back in 2005, please reconcile with us first why Republicans used that very same tool to pass the Bush tax cuts in 2001, 2003, and the 2005 "Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act." It was also used to open up drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: http://mediamatters.org/research/200905110007 You may also note a number of Republicans supporting the reconciliation process in that link at that time. So again, a means of passing parts of a bill through the gridlocked Senate by bypassing a filibuster (i.e. reconciliation), which has been performed by Republican Congress to pass Republican bills and has been supported by Republican members in the past is not equivalent to ending a filibuster altogether. But leave it to a liar like Breibart to deliberately confuse the two ideas for his readers/suckers. BTW, will he ever release the full footage of the ACORN videos? Somehow I doubt that will ever happen. Can't imagine why. Finally, I'm really interested in hearing a viable solution by Republicans that has been broken down by a nonpartisan group like the CBO that can demonstrate in any way how they can essentially stop or even lower annual premiums. In no way am I stating the Democratic plan is perfect, but they at least in both versions they have a means of addressing lowering or keeping premium costs relatively the same: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-premiums-and-/ Until the GOP has a viable answer to that from a nonpartisan group, please don't be surprised when Obama or most everyone else doesn't seemingly have much trust in the GOP adding much worthwhile to health care reform: http://www.newsweek.com/media/84/1001_ftop_v2.pdf

a) I assumed you were dead (much like this forum that I'm about to throw the towel in on). Long time no speak. I hope things are going well for you.

b) context is certainly important, I'll grant that. However, hypocrisy is hypocrisy no matter which side is engaged in it. We can call a spade a spade. I can't help but feel you're making my case for me regarding moral equivalence. Reconciliation is a shit way to pass any meaningful legislation--especially something as major as a complete, radical overhaul of healthcare. This should be legislation that is passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. Reconciliation is an end-around, desperation tactic and I don't think it will sit well with Americans, the vast majority of which disapprove of the bill that was put forth by both houses of congress.

c) I think you're painting with a tainted brush. Reconciliation on judicial nominees would actually make more sense, imho, because it is not a budgetary issue. I seem to vividly recall quite a bit of Democrat stonewalling on Bush judicial nominees, not even wanting to allow a simple up/down vote. But quite frankly, I think it's a shit tactic to begin with and I don't want to defend its use by anyone--that's not an honorable method to use as a means of change. It is underhanded when anyone uses it in such a manner. It was wrong then and it is wrong now. The only difference between then and now as far as I'm concerned is who is in power and how they can rationalize a shitty tactic when the tables turn in their favor.