How many of the Gang of 14 are still around?

 

I would not for one two basic reasons.

 

It is within our country's rules. To be fair, I've supported whichever side wants to do everything legal to get their agenda passed.

 

I believe good and just representatives will either step up, as they did with the gang of 14, or voters will send a sharp message to those that operate in a manner they disagree with.

For s***s and giggles, search for the word "filibuster" in the Constitution

 

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Edited February 6, 201016 yr by lostfan

For s***s and giggles, search for the word "filibuster" in the Constitution

 

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

 

 

It is constitutional, whether you or I like it or not. Next.

It is constitutional, whether you or I like it or not. Next.

I didn't even imply it wasn't unconstitutional, you're just making s*** up

I didn't even imply it wasn't unconstitutional, you're just making s*** up

 

I did?

I was just trying to make a point that it "being allowed" doesn't mean it's correct or even worth a goddamn. It doesn't mention filibustering anywhere in the Senate but it says somewhere in the Constitution (I don't know where, I haven't read the full text in a while and it may have been a Supreme Court decision a couple hundred years ago actually) that the houses of Congress make their own rules. I think one of the things we can all agree on without any difficulty is that just because the Senate or House is allowed to do something doesn't mean they know what the f*** they're doing. If it doesn't work (and clearly the current procedures aren't working, it's embarrassing to watch as an American see my government make a joke of itself) then s***can it and find a better way.

I was just trying to make a point that it "being allowed" doesn't mean it's correct or even worth a goddamn. It doesn't mention filibustering anywhere in the Senate but it says somewhere in the Constitution (I don't know where, I haven't read the full text in a while and it may have been a Supreme Court decision a couple hundred years ago actually) that the houses of Congress make their own rules. I think one of the things we can all agree on without any difficulty is that just because the Senate or House is allowed to do something doesn't mean they know what the f*** they're doing. If it doesn't work (and clearly the current procedures aren't working, it's embarrassing to watch as an American see my government make a joke of itself) then s***can it and find a better way.

 

I know you were.

 

Honestly, though, you want to talk about bastardizing the intent... I'll argue all day long that liberals are trying to blow the firewalls of the constitution and this is a stand against that.

Before you do you should probably re-read the constitution and then realize you are wrong.

Before you do you should probably re-read the constitution and then realize you are wrong.

 

 

Yea, because it's living and breathing (uh uhhhh uhhhhhh uhhhhhhhhh) and then the libs blow up.

 

Read the Federalist papers and understand the debates and intents of what was done and why. This government today is like the King of England on steroids with what they are wanting to do.

did they say that corporations were people in the federalist papers?

At its heart, yes. You can definitely make that argument because it's viewed as a speech issue... and for the record, I don't fully support that decision, but I get it. Do you, or do you have to look at it from liberal goggles?

 

Let's move back to the other thread. It's more civil.

 

and you can make the argument for all of the policies and rulings that have been made as well. The constitution is the basic structure of gov't, it was never to be the end all be all frozen in time moment.

Yea, because it's living and breathing (uh uhhhh uhhhhhh uhhhhhhhhh) and then the libs blow up.

 

Read the Federalist papers and understand the debates and intents of what was done and why. This government today is like the King of England on steroids with what they are wanting to do.

 

The federalist papers were a means to persuade ratification of the constitution. Further, after ratification, there were two camps on how to implement this government, one more strict in the interpretation and one more flexible. Over time, flexibility won by the will of the people.

 

What's funny is the constitution does not make any reference to what is or should be American policy. It does not endorse capitalism or outlaw communism. It just provides a very simple and basic framework for the government to implement the will of the people via elected representatives with a system of checks and balances to keep any of the three branches from abusing power. So, theoretically, we could elect members of the communist party to a congressional majority and the presidency. They could then nationalize all industry and crush powerful elements of the system currently in place and it would be constitutional unless the supreme court weighed in and deemed otherwise. It would be the will of the people.

 

So when you say that a 59-41 majority in the senate and the largest victory for the presidency since Bush Sr in '88 is anything less than the people speaking, you really discredit any other argument you make in this forum. You can spin it however you want, but in 2008, the American public clearly said enough, and the pendulum swung the other direction. The Dems bungled what should be a powerful majority in 2009 in a most frustrating manner, but not one of the policies they presented were extreme or clearly against the will of the people. There is nothing noble or patriotic about the obstinacy of the GOP and their closet racist Tea Party supporters. The people spoke in 2008 and the GOP needs to accept that, just as the Dems accepted it in 2004, when Jr. was finally elected by the majority of the voters.

 

The GOP may accomplish their goal of stonewalling the Dems and effectively shutting down the government until they return to power. However, it will be them that will be going against the wishes of the people, not the proposed policies of the Democratic Party.

Yeah I was going to say that the Founding Fathers didn't just decide once and for all what the US government was going to be like forever at that exact moment and there was never anything resembling a consensus either. s*** even Thomas Jefferson went against his principles at certain points.

Yeah I was going to say that the Founding Fathers didn't just decide once and for all what the US government was going to be like forever at that exact moment and there was never anything resembling a consensus either. s*** even Thomas Jefferson went against his principles at certain points.

 

 

Sure, but THE founding principle of the Declaration and at least inherent in the Constitution and explicit in a lot of ways is private property rights and protection of the individual. The will of the people, my ass, that we're being protected as individuals today. And be sure to understand where I am and am not pointing the finger at here.

Sure, but THE founding principle of the Declaration and at least inherent in the Constitution and explicit in a lot of ways is private property rights and protection of the individual. The will of the people, my ass, that we're being protected as individuals today. And be sure to understand where I am and am not pointing the finger at here.

 

Please elaborate. I know the founding fathers were a bunch of masons that didn't want to pay their taxes and bow to a king, but there were plenty of men who drew up the constitution with a more noble plan than protecting their stuff.

kap is making s*** up. again.

kap is making s*** up. again.

 

 

Really? Government intervention in almost everything is protecting individual liberty? Um, sure, I'm making s*** up, again.

Really? Government intervention in almost everything is protecting individual liberty? Um, sure, I'm making s*** up, again.

Right now, I'd say the Dems have a slight edge over the GOP in terms of protecting individual liberties. Which is sad, since that had previously been one of the cornerstones of the Republican Party.

 

Right now, I'd say the Dems have a slight edge over the GOP in terms of protecting individual liberties. Which is sad, since that had previously been one of the cornerstones of the Republican Party.

 

What I said, and quite on purpose, has nothing to do with "Republican" or "Democrat".

What I said, and quite on purpose, has nothing to do with "Republican" or "Democrat".

Well good then - you see what many don't. Intruding on people's lives no longer has a "party".

 

Well good then - you see what many don't. Intruding on people's lives no longer has a "party".

 

 

Oh, I absolutely agree with that. It's part of what pisses me off about Republicans. They don't really get it, either.

Oh, I absolutely agree with that. It's part of what pisses me off about Republicans. They don't really get it, either.

They kind of think they do but not really. I wish they did and if they ever did I'd probably be a Republican tbh, much in the same way I'd be a registered Dem if they weren't such p*****s about everything and caved in to everything all the time. The GOP isn't sincere about anything anymore except electoral advantages. f*** them.

The GOP isn't sincere about anything anymore except electoral advantages. f*** them.

And the Dems are? They just react to losing their seats a little differently. The Republicans get threatened and decide to bomb more people. The Dems act like Pygmy Marmosets.

And the Dems are? They just react to losing their seats a little differently. The Republicans get threatened and decide to bomb more people. The Dems act like Pygmy Marmosets.

lol Balta I didn't expect you to use the same argument as the conservatives "are you saying they don't do it too?" Of course the Dems do it too, I was just talking about Republicans in that post.

 

The Dems are too disorganized and scared of their own shadows to actually know if they are supposed to be serious about something or not.

Edited February 6, 201016 yr by lostfan

lol Balta I didn't expect you to use the same argument as the conservatives "are you saying they don't do it too?" Of course the Dems do it too, I was just talking about Republicans in that post.

 

The Dems are too disorganized and scared of their own shadows to actually know if they are supposed to be serious about something or not.

I wouldn't mind one bit if they were scared of losing their seats if we had a system where that meant that people were responsive to the voters. My issue remains; right now, when you're scared of losing your seat, that means you kowtow more deeply to someone on Wall Street.