bmags

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 28, 2009 -> 01:36 PM) because last I saw, no one was calling for Snowe to be stripped of everything she has earned. and there's a difference between doing what she is doing, possibly voting and at least working with the opposing party, as opposed to actively denying your own caucus the ability to vote on their biggest legislation in 60 years. That's quite a difference. But, obviously, i forgot, everything is equal blah blah blah... If a Republican threatened to filibuster against tax cuts, filibuster against defense spending, filibuster, etc. you see how far they get. Honestly. It's not even in the same realm.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 28, 2009 -> 01:02 PM) When you are talking about procedure, it is a technicality. Congress needs to address this, but until then, those are the rules. Are you honestly telling me that people should vote for a technicality when they know doing so will result in something they don't believe in? Then why ever vote no? Why ever vote? Sometimes you are going to be overruled when 100 people are voting on something, well, if ever they could be allowed to vote. The vote is the statement. Why look at voting records? Let's look at threats to make sure voting doesn't happen. That apparently is the key. Hey, let's go to dinner. Alright, where do you guys wanna go. I've heard good things about this spanish food place Oh, me too, sounds good. I like Mexican. Well let's take a vote. No, I've already heard people express their vote against me, we shouldn't vote. Let's just not eat. For one, I think the Senate filibuster is way too easy to enact, as opposed to the house, they don't have to do anything strenuous. It isn't Mr. Smith goes to washington. But really, You arguing that I shouldn't be mad about a senator in the Dem caucus granted leadership positions that not just isn't giving his vote to what his caucus has worked on, but won't even let them vote on it. It's ridiculous.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 28, 2009 -> 12:50 PM) The difference is technical only, really it is much worse, because he is putting the bill into a situation where he knows it will pass. At the end of the day, everyone is saying that Lieberman's duty as a Democrat is more important than his job as a Representative, which is insane. If he doesn't believe in a bill he knows he is going to vote against, why should he cast a vote that he knows will lead to its passage? because we live in a representative democracy that only recently has moved the bar from simple majority passing, to now 3/5s. The majority in 2 chambers plus another branch would pass this on straight up or down, but because a minority in one chamber, it shouldn't even be allowed to be voted on? That's not technicality.

I really wish I would've bought the box set. Being poor sucks.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 28, 2009 -> 12:23 PM) I guess that is your opinion, but obviously the high level Dems decided otherwise, and I tend to agree with their assessment. Lamont wasn't going to win, unles Lieberman self-destructed somehow. The high-level dems only campaigned for Lieberman in the primary, after that everyone was kind of mum, but Clinton, for instance, helped the Lemont campaign.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 28, 2009 -> 03:33 AM) Then they probably should quit b****ing about it, or quit acting like inclusiveness actually is true. There's a difference between voting up or down, and voting against cloture to prevent a vote on the bill your party has worked on. In the Senate, 40 senators can threaten to fil-i-bust-er and they don't have to read a telephone book, they merely have to continually have someone in the senate as present, and this would kill a bill easily. So no, I don't care if Lincoln, Bayh, Nelson say "no" I have a problem if they don't allow their own party to vote on its own bill.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 28, 2009 -> 12:09 PM) lol wut? Its not true I disagree? How strange. it's not true that Lemont had no chance in the GE. If he hadn't stayed mum for 3 weeks in october when Lieberman started to backtrack on war rhetoric it would have prevented a lot of the 20% migration from democrats.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 28, 2009 -> 12:08 AM) Disagree. that's not true.

I do. Now go read about DOJ.

you realize that lieberman is an I in the dem caucus, given leadership positions because of this?

you understand how our gov't works so well don't you?

lol it's whose choice?

no one gets your bad jokes kap

Oh hey joe, remember when you campaigned for the Republican candidate, and were still given all of your leadership positions...Oh, well we're stripping them. We'll see how his vote changes then.

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.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 12:47 PM) The Bengals were running the cover 2 most of Sunday, and it seemed to work pretty well. Bottom line, if you dont get a pass rush, the cover 2 is worthless. When you are pressuring the QB a lot, it works great true for any scheme ever.

specifics of the pub. option aren't out, possiblly the medicare +5 or schumers negotiated rates, as it stands, a mandate for health insurance will probably pass and a public option will be instituted where states can opt-out if they don't want it. Those without insurance can get on the PO, and not sure about underinsured.

I don't believe opt-in is being considered. It will probably be worked through st. legislatures and not given straight to crazy govs. FWIW, Medicare was opt-out when instituted.

yeah there was an article in columbia, mo about how racist the dress requirements were for bars.

maybe he's been lonely.

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Oct 26, 2009 -> 07:42 PM) In America, you vould keell to see a bear on skates. . . In Russia, bear on skates vould KEELL YOU! just, the best. I bow.

I'd be worried. The gay community has a history of targeting anti-gays and beating them mercilessly, tying them to posts.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 01:25 AM) Must have locked up 60 votes then? I think they do for at least cloture, and then at least 50 for passing.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 12:35 AM) Putting the public option in the final bill? um...yeah. The PO was declared dead in the water 4 weeks ago, the baucus bill had no PO, had each one get voted down. Reid has appeared to not want to take any responsibility, and then... the HELP PO with an opt-out. Nuts. I'm thrilled.

So, frankly, I'm pleased with Reid. Wow. Totally shocked at him going for this, and pleased that Baucus was saying he'd vote for something like that. Just need to whip Bayh/Lincoln/Nelson not to vote against f'n cloture.