NorthSideSox72 Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 11:48 AM) So basically you've accepted my premise that the only way to fix the system is to make health care public. Yay. Don't play dumb Balta, it doesn't suit you. I stated in great detail what I'd do, in this forum, and I am sure you read it. Making health care entirely public is not a viable solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 11:43 AM) it's also not a secret that the 60 vote supermajority required for everything passing the Senate is also a new development over the last 10 years or so, and especially the last 3. That's laughable, Mr. Cloture on court appointees (which is EXPLICITLY not constutitional unlike cloture on other issues, not that I agree with it being used for EITHER party). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 10:30 AM) That's laughable, Mr. Cloture on court appointees (which is EXPLICITLY not constutitional unlike cloture on other issues, not that I agree with it being used for EITHER party). In 1949, a change to Senate rules allowed members to filibuster executive branch nominees. Senators tend to believe (or at least to say) that, within bounds of decency, the White House deserves to be able to staff the executive branch as it chooses; and in the 60 years since then, the practice has been used sparingly. Until Barack Obama came to town. "Between 1949 and 2009 there were 24 nominees on which cloture was forced," Baker said. "In just the first 9 months of the Obama administration, there have been five such votes." During the George W. Bush administration, Baker notes, there were seven such votes. It's probably also worth noting that there were more cloture votes on Judges during the Clinton years than during the Bush years. If the Filibuster is treated like it was in the 60's, where you actually had to do something to hold up a bill, then it'd be far more interesting. It's the fact that it can now be applied without doing anything that totally shakes up the system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 out of curiosity does kap realize how many DOJ and Obama appointees STILL have holds on them with no verbal objections? I think it's no secret the Dems have been unable to hold their caucus, but that's what happens when you allow conservatives into your party, but it's better to have kay hagans/lincolns/nelsons than the opposite who most certainly would just be threatening filibuster. They have the ability to be whipped, but they clearly wanted a conservative bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted October 27, 2009 Author Share Posted October 27, 2009 QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 12:53 PM) I think it's no secret the Dems have been unable to hold their caucus, but that's what happens when you allow conservatives into your party, but it's better to have kay hagans/lincolns/nelsons than the opposite who most certainly would just be threatening filibuster. They have the ability to be whipped, but they clearly wanted a conservative bill. Larger parties tend not to be super rigid ideologically. It's what makes them a larger party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 12:53 PM) out of curiosity does kap realize how many DOJ and Obama appointees STILL have holds on them with no verbal objections? I think it's no secret the Dems have been unable to hold their caucus, but that's what happens when you allow conservatives into your party, but it's better to have kay hagans/lincolns/nelsons than the opposite who most certainly would just be threatening filibuster. They have the ability to be whipped, but they clearly wanted a conservative bill. Yes, and that's their choice. All their focus is screwing us up the ass with their "health care plan" right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 lol it's whose choice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 01:54 PM) lol it's whose choice? The Dems. They can do whatever they want. But they aren't. Man, if "conservatives" and "moderates" are so wrong with everything they think, why don't they just do what they want to do??? You get the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 you understand how our gov't works so well don't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 02:00 PM) you understand how our gov't works so well don't you? No, I'm obviously a f***ing ignoramous tool. I'm obviously dumber then your hangnail on your pinky finger. Please. I realize that you're obviously smarter then me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 I do. Now go read about DOJ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 (edited) QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 12:37 PM) It's probably also worth noting that there were more cloture votes on Judges during the Clinton years than during the Bush years. If the Filibuster is treated like it was in the 60's, where you actually had to do something to hold up a bill, then it'd be far more interesting. It's the fact that it can now be applied without doing anything that totally shakes up the system. Ask Estrada how his cloture vote turned out? Oh wait..he didn't get a cloture vote. God forbid the first Supreme Court Hispanic be a Republican pick. Ask Durbin he was the point man on this injustice. Edited October 27, 2009 by Cknolls Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 QUOTE (Cknolls @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 12:54 PM) Ask Estrada how his cloture vote turned out? Oh wait..he didn't get a cloture vote. God forbid the first Supreme Court Hispanic be a Republican pick. Ask Durbin he was the point man on this injustice. I thought affirmative action was a bad thing and that we were supposed to live in a racially-blind world? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 02:57 PM) I thought affirmative action was a bad thing and that we were supposed to live in a racially-blind world? Unless you're a hispanic, black, asian, woman, (whatever) conservative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 Somone remind me why so many Dems backed the Independent Joe Liebermann vs the Democratic Challenger Ned Lamont. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 03:55 PM) Somone remind me why so many Dems backed the Independent Joe Liebermann vs the Democratic Challenger Ned Lamont. Good question. Other then he had the ties for 35 years or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted October 27, 2009 Author Share Posted October 27, 2009 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 03:55 PM) Somone remind me why so many Dems backed the Independent Joe Liebermann vs the Democratic Challenger Ned Lamont. I bet Obama wondered the same thing last year. I believe he went to Connecticut to make some Joementum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 03:55 PM) Somone remind me why so many Dems backed the Independent Joe Liebermann vs the Democratic Challenger Ned Lamont. Because Lamont wasn't going to be able to win, and half a senator is better than no senator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 02:21 PM) Because Lamont wasn't going to be able to win, and half a senator is better than no senator. yes he would have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 04:23 PM) yes he would have. Disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 Nate Silver explains why Leiberman is crazy: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/10/som...rman-puppy.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonxctf Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 maybe the President needs to remind Mr. Lieberman that he kept him from being kicked out of the Democratic caucus and losing his Chairmanship. Maybe that decision needs to be re-visited for Traitor Joe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 28, 2009 -> 12:08 AM) Disagree. that's not true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 06:20 PM) maybe the President needs to remind Mr. Lieberman that he kept him from being kicked out of the Democratic caucus and losing his Chairmanship. Maybe that decision needs to be re-visited for Traitor Joe. Lol. Yup room for everyone under the Democratic umbrella... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 09:20 PM) Lol. Yup room for everyone under the Democratic umbrella... Yeah the guy totally deserves preferential treatment after going to the RNC convention and talking trash about the Democratic nominee while talking up the GOP candidate and the grossly incompetent VP pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts