Quote:
Edit: That is not to say that the Democrats got screwed in this, because they did.
That was a self-********. They went and fUCked themselves.
"Circular firing squad" comes to mind.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- To Anyone in Massachusetts
To Anyone in MassachusettsFollow
That was a self-********. They went and fUCked themselves.
"Circular firing squad" comes to mind.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Yeah, I just read an analysis from someone who is a "machine" Democrat from Boston, and the infighting between Eastern MA and Western MA was the reason Coakley won and then got no support. She's a western MA person, and the Eastern MA people can't stand her. She got no love or assistance from the party Dems in Boston because they didn't like her.
It's not a referendum on anything other than Democrats being a bunch of bickering nine year olds and letting their opposition take advantage of them.
It's not a referendum on anything other than Democrats being a bunch of bickering nine year olds and letting their opposition take advantage of them.
Samira wrote:
Quote:
Edit: That is not to say that the Democrats got screwed in this, because they did.
That was a self-********. They went and fUCked themselves.
"Circular firing squad" comes to mind.
Oh, completely agree.
Quote:
Yeah, I just read an analysis from someone who is a "machine" Democrat from Boston, and the infighting between Eastern MA and Western MA was the reason Coakley won and then got no support. She's a western MA person, and the Eastern MA people can't stand her. She got no love or assistance from the party Dems in Boston because they didn't like her.
Actually, it was the fucking suburbs.
All major cities but Lowell went Coakley & far western MA actually went Coakley too.
Edited, Jan 20th 2010 11:24am by Omegavegeta
Edited, Jan 20th 2010 8:52pm by Omegavegeta
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin
Jophiel wrote:
I don't entirely disagree but while his national approval might be at 49-50% (according to RCP today), Obama still scores ~60% approval in Mass. When Corzine lost the governor's race in New Jersey, NJ was giving Obama ~60% as well.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Conventional wisdom this morning is that the Powers That Be shall try to wrangle the Senate bill through the House unchanged, thus eliminating the need for a second Senate vote. In exchange, the Senate leadership will take up some House bills down the road that will modify the bill to retroactively appease the House and will pass them through reconciliation if the GOP attempts to filibuster. Since the bulk of the House objections are related to fiscal aspects of the bill, there shouldn't be any real problem with using reconciliation to pass them.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
publiusvarus wrote:
The upcoming congressional elections will be independents oppurtunity to oppose Obama without being accused of being racist.
What if the Democrats run black folks in every race?? Whatcha gonna do then, smart guy? Huh? HUH??
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Black people are socialists?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
Black people are socialists?
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
George Stephanopoulos interviewed President Obama regarding the future of the health care bill:
Quote:
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: So how do you do it now? This strategy that a lot of people have talked about getting the House to pass the Senate bill. Speaker Pelosi yesterday seemed to say that this was kind of a non-starter.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, here's, here's one thing I know and I just want to make sure that this is off the table. The Senate certainly shouldn't try to jam anything through until Scott Brown is seated. People in Massachusetts spoke. He's got to be part of that process. So...
STEPHANOPOULOS: Number one...
OBAMA: That, that's point number one. I think point number two is that it is very important to look at the substance of this package and for the American people to understand that a lot of the fear mongering around this bill isn't true. I would advise that we try to move quickly to coalesce around those elements of the package that people agree on. We know that we need insurance reform, that the health insurance companies are taking advantage of people. We know that we have to have some form of cost containment because if we don't, then our budgets are going to blow up and we know that small businesses are going to need help so that they can provide health insurance to their families. Those are the core, some of the core elements of, to this bill.
[...]
STEPHANOPOULOS: We're just about out of time, I just want to wrap up a couple things. You're not advocating that the House pickup the Senate bill.
OBAMA: I think it is very important for the House to make its determinations. I think, right now, they're feeling obviously unsettled and there were a bunch of provisions in the Senate bill that they didn't like, and so I can't force them to do that. Now I will tell you, and I've said this before, that the House and the Senate bill overlap about 90 percent.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Right.
OBAMA: And so, it does seem to me that there should be a way of, after all this work and all this pain, there should be a way of taking what's best in both bills and going ahead and getting that done.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, here's, here's one thing I know and I just want to make sure that this is off the table. The Senate certainly shouldn't try to jam anything through until Scott Brown is seated. People in Massachusetts spoke. He's got to be part of that process. So...
STEPHANOPOULOS: Number one...
OBAMA: That, that's point number one. I think point number two is that it is very important to look at the substance of this package and for the American people to understand that a lot of the fear mongering around this bill isn't true. I would advise that we try to move quickly to coalesce around those elements of the package that people agree on. We know that we need insurance reform, that the health insurance companies are taking advantage of people. We know that we have to have some form of cost containment because if we don't, then our budgets are going to blow up and we know that small businesses are going to need help so that they can provide health insurance to their families. Those are the core, some of the core elements of, to this bill.
[...]
STEPHANOPOULOS: We're just about out of time, I just want to wrap up a couple things. You're not advocating that the House pickup the Senate bill.
OBAMA: I think it is very important for the House to make its determinations. I think, right now, they're feeling obviously unsettled and there were a bunch of provisions in the Senate bill that they didn't like, and so I can't force them to do that. Now I will tell you, and I've said this before, that the House and the Senate bill overlap about 90 percent.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Right.
OBAMA: And so, it does seem to me that there should be a way of, after all this work and all this pain, there should be a way of taking what's best in both bills and going ahead and getting that done.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Can I make a wild guess and say that "years" means "since 2006"?
You'd be wrong but I'll certainly admit that the massive increase in the use of filibusters since 2006 has heightened my distain for the practice. The fact that the last couple Senates have broken all records and doubled the number of filibusters from the 2005-2006 Congress to the 2007-2008 Congress means that, just maybe, people can think there's a real problem with it without resorting to partisan reasons.
You can look at this two different ways though. You could assume that the increase in filibusters during that time period was because Republicans are just plain obstructionist bastards, or you could assume that this increase was because the Democrats spent a lot more time trying to pass laws which the Republicans absolutely disagreed with.
I suspect the lower number of filibusters in the years before had a lot to do with the GOP *not* trying to push forward with a legislative agenda which the Dems simply opposed nearly 100%. You talk about bi-partisanship, but it's odd that you miss this.
Quote:
Or, put it this way: I'm saying we should reform it now, knowing that the Democratic majority won't last forever. Will you be as embracing of the concept when the GOP has 51 votes in the Senate but needs 60 to pass anything but the most banal of legislation? Because I assure you that the GOP is creating a status quo here, not an exception. I may not agree with the "correctness" of that but it's the truth.
I disagree that the filibuster is bad. Regardless of which party is using it. What it does is prevent one party from ramming through legislation which the other completely disagrees with. While neither party represents everyone in the country 100%, they do represent large portions of the population collectively. Any legislation which is opposed sufficiently for a single party to be able to gather a filibuster against it is probably something we shouldn't be passing.
I'm assuming you agree with the notion that just because 51% of the population agrees with something doesn't mean that they should get to do something the other 49% disagrees with completely. A simple majority does not equate to a mandate to trample over and ignore the opinions of the minority. Or at least, it shouldn't...
I think the filibuster is a good thing.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
You could assume that the increase in filibusters during that time period was because Republicans are just plain obstructionist bastards, or you could assume that this increase was because the Democrats spent a lot more time trying to pass laws which the Republicans absolutely disagreed with.
I assume both, or rather somewhere in between the two.
However, the business of statesmanship is compromise. They are there to thrash things out, to change, to pound out details and oppose specifics but not to obstruct as such.
Filibuster should be the last resort. The absolute, final, "we have tried in good faith and we cannot move forward on this, Your Honor" hung-jury last resort. They should have damn good reasons, reasons they can easily explain to us, for doing nothing at their pay scales.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
It's amazing that people are talking about how health care might not get passed anymore because the Democrats are down to a measly 18 vote lead in the Senate.
But that's what the Republican Senate strategy is.
Edited, Jan 20th 2010 3:38pm by bsphil
gbaji wrote:
I'm assuming you agree with the notion that just because 51% of the population agrees with something doesn't mean that they should get to do something the other 49% disagrees with completely. A simple majority does not equate to a mandate to trample over and ignore the opinions of the minority. Or at least, it shouldn't...
Edited, Jan 20th 2010 3:38pm by bsphil
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
gbaji wrote:
You can look at this two different ways though. You could assume that the increase in filibusters during that time period was because Republicans are just plain obstructionist bastards, or you could assume that this increase was because the Democrats spent a lot more time trying to pass laws which the Republicans absolutely disagreed with.
Yeah, you're pretending that these are different absolutes. They're not. If the Democrats want to pass a 15% Puppy Tax and the GOP wants no Puppy Tax and so the Democrats try to pass a 5% Puppy Tax to which the GOP goes "FILIBUSTER!!!", I'm not going to say it's the fault of the Democrats. That's just obstructionism.
Quote:
I disagree that the filibuster is bad. Regardless of which party is using it.
Well, you're welcome to your opinion and I hope you hold it near when the Democrats require a 60 GOP vote majority to do more than name post offices. Because I guarantee you that that's where we're headed.
Personally, the best change idea to it I've heard is to put a 72 hour limit on a filibuster. Then, if the minority party filibusters again (on the same bill), it only requires a 58 vote majority to break it. Then a 56, 54, etc. This gives a maximum of a fifteen day period to "continue debate" but disallows using the filibuster for purely obstructionist reasons. If you can't convince a simple majority that your point of view is correct in fifteen days, it ain't gonna happen so let's vote and move on.
Quote:
A simple majority does not equate to a mandate to trample over and ignore the opinions of the minority.
Nor should a minority get to hold the majority hostage via procedural tactic. If your vaunted and revered Founding Fathers wanted a supermajority in the Senate to pass any legislation, it'd have been written that way to begin with.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Oh, and irony of ironies, it seems that Gbaji's opinion of the filibuster has changed quite a bit since 2005.
(Bolding mine; Hypocrisy is all Gbaji's)
On August 1, 2005, Gbaji wrote:
The intent of the filibuster for instance was so that the Senate could be forced to consider an issue it was debating at length and to the satisfaction of all parties. It was not and was never intended to be a defacto method of requiring a higher approval ratio for everything in order to break the filibuster. It definately is not intended for external debate issues like approving executive appointments.
There are set ratios that are required for various votes in the Senate. The assumption is that if the vote requires 2/3rds of the senate, then if 2/3rds agree, it should pass. Same with majority votes, 3/4th votes, and so on. Requiring all votes to break a filibuster makes that whole distinction invalid.
There are set ratios that are required for various votes in the Senate. The assumption is that if the vote requires 2/3rds of the senate, then if 2/3rds agree, it should pass. Same with majority votes, 3/4th votes, and so on. Requiring all votes to break a filibuster makes that whole distinction invalid.
(Bolding mine; Hypocrisy is all Gbaji's)
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
gbaji wrote:
A simple majority does not equate to a mandate to trample over and ignore the opinions of the minority.
publiusvarus wrote:
Now you want to change the rules.
Now? Nah, I would have been okay with it earlier as well. Granted, the GOP has made such a tactic out of it (a 100% increase in filibusters, not counting threatened filibusters that resulted in a bill being shelved) that it's becoming increasingly obvious that it's a bad situation but that's just shedding light on the issue. Back when people could behave themselves, there was less reason to fret over it.
Since I dug back on Gbaji, in an effort of fairness, here's my quotes. I don't have a long record of talking on the topic here but, prior to 2006, here's my comments on the filibuster:
On Nov. 11 2005, I wrote:
Moderate Democrats have already said they won't support a filibuster for the Supreme Court appointment. Good. I can't speak for every Senator but I'd hope the bulk of them will respect that.
On July 31 2005, I wrote:
Honestly, I'm getting tired of the continual Democratic stonewalling. I'm not fond of Bush and it stands to reason that I won't be fond of most of his choices for appointees but nothing is gained by constantly holding up votes that have foregone conclusions. I'll most probably be voting Left in the next elections simply because I disagree with many stanmces from the Right but what's happening now isn't winning any favors.
I also comment briefly on it in this thread although I don't really opine on it.
To head off the obvious, yes, both my quotes were in regards to Bush appointees. But then, there are currently 177 Obama appointees held up versus 70 Bush appointees after his first year. I'm sure Gbaji will say this is only because Obama has only nominated hobgoblins, poisonous lizards and avowed communists to run the nation.
Edited, Jan 20th 2010 4:16pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
publiusvarus wrote:
And here you are 5yrs later still supporting the Democrats regardless of what they say and do.
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
publiusvarus wrote:
Jophed,
Nope...just a whole lot of she-males.
Quote:
I'm sure Gbaji will say this is only because Obama has only nominated hobgoblins, poisonous lizards and avowed communists to run the nation.
Nope...just a whole lot of she-males.
Edited, Jan 20th 2010 4:23pm by bsphil
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
Recent Visitors: 544
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (544)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- To Anyone in Massachusetts
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC