Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Obama is in dire trouble, and he knows it; there is something amiss in the Obama Whitehouse, we just don't know what... yet.
The GOP will take over the House, and probably the Senate as well. Then watch what the lame-ducks do... it's gonna be scary. Obama is a man on the ropes... it could get very ugly.
I think you are dreaming. The next 2 years will be a legislative quagmire with virtually no legislation passed.
The GOP is no how, no way gonna get 60 seats in the senate and therefore they can't pass anything for the foreseeable future.
Why would anybody defend the fillibuster?
What conceivable usefull purpose does it serve?
We elect 50 senators, when legislation arrives from the house they vote yay or nay, in case of a tie, Dick Cheney breaks it.
Wtf is wrong with that?
The Dick Cheney part
That was the part that wasn't a serious question.
Name one reason why anybody should defend the filibuster?
Obama is in dire trouble, and he knows it; there is something amiss in the Obama Whitehouse, we just don't know what... yet.
The GOP will take over the House, and probably the Senate as well. Then watch what the lame-ducks do... it's gonna be scary. Obama is a man on the ropes... it could get very ugly.
I think you are dreaming. The next 2 years will be a legislative quagmire with virtually no legislation passed.
The GOP is no how, no way gonna get 60 seats in the senate and therefore they can't pass anything for the foreseeable future.
I dunno there Sparky... Obama and the Dems have nose-dived major league in a very short time. Nobody, NOBODY is running on Obama or his agenda. Far from it, they are running from it.
The GOP will take the Senate. Watch. Carville is already getting the garbage can fitted for his giant Lizard-Head.
The Dick Cheney part
That was the part that wasn't a serious question.
Name one reason why anybody should defend the filibuster?
Read my posts on this thread
Obama is in dire trouble, and he knows it; there is something amiss in the Obama Whitehouse, we just don't know what... yet.
The GOP will take over the House, and probably the Senate as well. Then watch what the lame-ducks do... it's gonna be scary. Obama is a man on the ropes... it could get very ugly.
I think you are dreaming. The next 2 years will be a legislative quagmire with virtually no legislation passed.
The GOP is no how, no way gonna get 60 seats in the senate and therefore they can't pass anything for the foreseeable future.
I dunno there Sparky... Obama and the Dems have nose-dived major league in a very short time. Nobody, NOBODY is running on Obama or his agenda. Far from it, they are running from it.
The GOP will take the Senate. Watch. Carville is already getting the garbage can fitted for his giant Lizard-Head.
That was the part that wasn't a serious question.
Name one reason why anybody should defend the filibuster?
Read my posts on this thread
I did, they seemed to flip flop all over the place.
So what is your defense of the filibuster?
There is no mention of fillibuster in the Constitution. If someone is a strict Constitutionalist they should oppose filibuster.
The concept of filibuster was a Senate procedural tactic that involved refusing to give up the floor. I support filibuster if the Senators actually have to speak.
I feel that the defacto 60% vote required in the Senate violates the Constitution and should be resolved by Senate procedural restrictions or by the courts if the Senate is unable to fix itself
The filibuster needs to stay, but I COMPLETELY agree that it needs to go back to requiring those filibustering to ACTUALLY filibuster and not just invoke it as they do now. Given the fact that they can simply invoke it, it's now used frequently to play partisan politics and be obstructionist. If they had to actually filibuster, it would only be used when it really matters and thus much less often.
But doing away with it entirely is a horrible idea.
I agree that the fillibuster should be maintained. But both parties have progressively abused the intent of the fillibuster to the point where the Constitution has seen a defacto change to a 60% vote in the Senate.
A bill the stature of the Stimulus or the Healthcare plan should have been subjected to possible fillibuster. But when every court appointment and minor piece of legislation gets fillibustered we have a non-functional government.
Either make them talk it out or agree to rules on what is subject to fillibuster
There is no mention of fillibuster in the Constitution. If someone is a strict Constitutionalist they should oppose filibuster.
The concept of filibuster was a Senate procedural tactic that involved refusing to give up the floor. I support filibuster if the Senators actually have to speak.
I feel that the defacto 60% vote required in the Senate violates the Constitution and should be resolved by Senate procedural restrictions or by the courts if the Senate is unable to fix itself
even that post flip flops all over. Twice it lists reason to oppose the filibuster but it clearly indicates support for it as well.
WHY would you support the filibuster?
I'm glad all you Hopey Changeys feel this way. Maybe this will happen when a Republican retakes the White House and the Republicans control Congress. We have you on record for supporting ending the Filibuster. We'll see if you still feel that way in the future. Somehow i doubt it though.
Somehow, you're an idiot.
Anyone who believes in the Vote should want it ended.
I don't care who's in office.
The people get to decide if they did the job right or not. No excuses, the filibuster is an excuse to get nothing done.
I think you are dreaming. The next 2 years will be a legislative quagmire with virtually no legislation passed.
The GOP is no how, no way gonna get 60 seats in the senate and therefore they can't pass anything for the foreseeable future.
I dunno there Sparky... Obama and the Dems have nose-dived major league in a very short time. Nobody, NOBODY is running on Obama or his agenda. Far from it, they are running from it.
The GOP will take the Senate. Watch. Carville is already getting the garbage can fitted for his giant Lizard-Head.
Obama's polls have been stable for the last year in the 45-50% approval rating.Higher than Reagan or Clinton at this point. The Republicans still lack a candidate capable of defeating him
I dunno there Sparky... Obama and the Dems have nose-dived major league in a very short time. Nobody, NOBODY is running on Obama or his agenda. Far from it, they are running from it.
The GOP will take the Senate. Watch. Carville is already getting the garbage can fitted for his giant Lizard-Head.
Obama's polls have been stable for the last year in the 45-50% approval rating.Higher than Reagan or Clinton at this point. The Republicans still lack a candidate capable of defeating him
"At this point," it is a little ridiculous to compare Barack Hussein with any previous presidency.
Either the economy will improve, and he'll win a second term, or it will not, and he'll be a Carter, or Bush Sr....one term president, victim of circumstances well beyond his control.
I'd like to be elected, like FDR, or Lincoln....when things could not get much worse, and there was no way to go but up.
There is no mention of fillibuster in the Constitution. If someone is a strict Constitutionalist they should oppose filibuster.
The concept of filibuster was a Senate procedural tactic that involved refusing to give up the floor. I support filibuster if the Senators actually have to speak.
I feel that the defacto 60% vote required in the Senate violates the Constitution and should be resolved by Senate procedural restrictions or by the courts if the Senate is unable to fix itself
even that post flip flops all over. Twice it lists reason to oppose the filibuster but it clearly indicates support for it as well.
WHY would you support the filibuster?
I support the right of Congress to set their own rules of conduct and access to the floor. The right to filibuster and hold the floor falls under that right. I personally think it is stupid, but think they have the right to make the rules.
I believe those rules have been abused to the point where the basic ability of the Senate to function has been negated. 41 % of the Senate should not be allowed to stop the Senate from doing its job.
Like many who have posted on the subject, I believe that if the Senate insists on the right to filibuster...it should be an actual filibuster. That would cut out the current abuse
Ame®icano;2903109 said:I'm glad all you Hopey Changeys feel this way. Maybe this will happen when a Republican retakes the White House and the Republicans control Congress. We have you on record for supporting ending the Filibuster. We'll see if you still feel that way in the future. Somehow i doubt it though.
Somehow, you're an idiot.
Anyone who believes in the Vote should want it ended.
I don't care who's in office.
The people get to decide if they did the job right or not. No excuses, the filibuster is an excuse to get nothing done.
Filibuster is insurance that nothing stupid will be done. It should be 2/3 (67 votes), to ensure that majority really want something. That will bring them to the table and make them work together.
"At this point," it is a little ridiculous to compare Barack Hussein with any previous presidency.
Either the economy will improve, and he'll win a second term, or it will not, and he'll be a Carter, or Bush Sr....one term president, victim of circumstances well beyond his control.
I'd like to be elected, like FDR, or Lincoln....when things could not get much worse, and there was no way to go but up.
