11 replies to this topic

[Tech]

Those against Reconciliation speak out

Obama, Clinton, Reid, Biden and others. I wonder how well they remember making those speaches?

[Prizetek]

They were wrong then. There is absolutely NOTHING in "the Constitution" about the Senate rules which allow a fillibuster. The Senate rules that allow a fillibuster were first adopted in 1806 and the first actual fillibuster did not occur until 1837. The Supreme Court has held that the Senate can eliminate the rules which allow a fillisbuster by a SIMPLE MAJORITY vote and IMO, they should have done that a long, long, long time ago.

Dodd's statement in particular is either a blatant lie, or reflects a particularly profound ignorance of our nation's history. The founders did NOT provide a bicameral legisltaure so that the Senate could have a fillibuster rule as a "check and balance" on the U.S. House. The bicameral legislature arose as a compromise between states with large populations, whose interests would best be served by representation based on population (the House) and smaller states with less population whose interests would best be served by giving each state an equal vote (the Senate).

It is a serious indictment of the voters of Connecticut that they would REPEATEDLY elect someone to represent them in the U.S. Senate who is either such a blatant liar or such an ignorant fool.

[atrich]

Prizetek, on 24 February 2010 - 12:53 PM, said:

They were wrong then. There is absolutely NOTHING in "the Constitution" about the Senate rules which allow a fillibuster. The Senate rules that allow a fillibuster were first adopted in 1806 and the first actual fillibuster did not occur until 1837. The Supreme Court has held that the Senate can eliminate the rules which allow a fillisbuster by a SIMPLE MAJORITY vote and IMO, they should have done that a long, long, long time ago.

Dodd's statement in particular is either a blatant lie, or reflects a particularly profound ignorance of our nation's history. The founders did NOT provide a bicameral legisltaure so that the Senate could have a fillibuster rule as a "check and balance" on the U.S. House. The bicameral legislature arose as a compromise between states with large populations, whose interests would best be served by representation based on population (the House) and smaller states with less population whose interests would best be served by giving each state an equal vote (the Senate).

It is a serious indictment of the voters of Connecticut that they would REPEATEDLY elect someone to represent them in the U.S. Senate who is either such a blatant liar or such an ignorant fool.

You're 100% correct about the reason for the bicameral legislature. The only way to get small states to join the union was to ensure that the states (and not just the people) would have a voice. The makeup of the Senate, though, was absolutely designed as a check on the House. Originally, Senators were chosen by state legislatures, not by direct popular vote. This was deemed to be an appropriate check on the possibility of mob rule.

It makes sense that Senators would be chosen by states, rather than by direct vote. If the whole point of one house of Congress is to reflect that we are a nation comprised of individual states, it follows that the members of that house be selected by the states. The people directly elect Representatives; the states should elect their Senators.

It's a nice idea, but it didn't work well in the 19th century. Senate seats were often given to the highest bidder. Kind of like the one Obama sold. ;-)

[Edman]

Tech, on 24 February 2010 - 11:27 AM, said:

Those against Reconciliation speak out

Obama, Clinton, Reid, Biden and others. I wonder how well they remember making those speaches?

Just like what then Sen Obama said about commissions during the campaign. (I posted it over at CF, won't do it now as I don't want to hijack your thread.

Just anther example of the hypocrisy of elected officials.

Edited by Edman, 24 February 2010 - 03:05 PM.

[Prizetek]

Hypocrisy knows no political party.

Here is Senator Judd Gregg (Republican) arguing in FAVOR of reconciliation in 2004 when debating a bill for drilling in the Alaska wildlife refuge:

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjD3gHZ2F6w"]http://www.youtube.c...h?v=UjD3gHZ2F6w[/url]


"If you've got 51 votes for your position, you win!"


Now he complains that reconciliation is "running over the minority, putting them in cement and throwing them in the Chicago River" and he "regards it as an act of violence."


Bush and the GOP used budget reconciliation to pass Bush' disastrous tax cuts in 2001, his tax cuts in 2003, and drilling in the Arctic wildlife refuge in 2005.


They are politicians. So of course they are all hypocrites. Shocker!

[Edman]

Prizetek, on 28 February 2010 - 09:27 AM, said:

Hypocrisy knows no political party.

They are politicians. So of course they are all hypocrites. Shocker!

AMEN!

[Max Power]

Al Gore speaks green, while driving SUVs between mansions. Dick Cheney oarts with Pubs on gay marriage, cuz his daughter is famously gay. John Murtha talks about fiscal constraint, while building an airport for himself on the taxpayer dime. Pubs speak out against funding for stem cell research, except for the Reagans, who could have benefitted from it. Recently a carolina congressman shot an intruder that entered his house, which is odd, as he was a champion of gun control.

The list goes on and on. These shit stains think they are above it.

[GGinSF]

Max Power, on 01 March 2010 - 02:10 PM, said:

Al Gore speaks green, while driving SUVs between mansions. Dick Cheney oarts with Pubs on gay marriage, cuz his daughter is famously gay. John Murtha talks about fiscal constraint, while building an airport for himself on the taxpayer dime. Pubs speak out against funding for stem cell research, except for the Reagans, who could have benefitted from it. Recently a carolina congressman shot an intruder that entered his house, which is odd, as he was a champion of gun control.

The list goes on and on. These shit stains think they are above it.

Max for President!!!!!

[Prizetek]

Max Power, on 01 March 2010 - 02:10 PM, said:

John Murtha talks about fiscal constraint, while building an airport for himself on the taxpayer dime.

Not any more he doesn't!

[Tech]

Nice collection of clips of the man who offers change. I guess the change is in what he says and what he delivers......

[Carl Spackler]

Max Power, on 01 March 2010 - 02:10 PM, said:

The list goes on and on. These shit stains think know they are above it.

fix.t

[Hutch]

Prizetek, on 28 February 2010 - 09:27 AM, said:

Hypocrisy knows no political party.

Hate to, but have to agree....scumbags regardless of political affiliation. If they aren't when first elected, they become so within a term or two.