Reid: 'Nuclear Option'

[Wyatt earp]

What a short sighted moron.

The majority party now will be the minority party of the future. Taking away minority rights is self destructive...but I doubt either you or Harry can grok that concept.

Oh for Gods sake don't give us that if we do it then they'll do it bullshit. You know as well as I do that the Republicans will use the nuclear option when they get the majority regardless of what Reid does now

And you know as well as I do that if and when they do, "Dingy" Harry will piss and moan about how unconscionable it is, and your sorry sheep ass will be in here cheering him on for THAT.

No shit, the left never thinks ahead. what tards.

 

[mmmjvpssm]

What a short sighted moron.

The majority party now will be the minority party of the future. Taking away minority rights is self destructive...but I doubt either you or Harry can grok that concept.

Just a question? Does anyone know why the Democrats never think ahead? an example: They shoved Obama care down are throats and then cry when the tea party rose up and republicans took the house, put the brakes on Obama, They are a strange bunch of folks.

Obamacare (they'll come a day when the cons get angry that we call it that) was not shoved down anybody's throat. It got a vote and was passed when there were more yes votes than no votes. That's the way it's supposed to work

 

[Wyatt earp]

What a short sighted moron.

The majority party now will be the minority party of the future. Taking away minority rights is self destructive...but I doubt either you or Harry can grok that concept.

Just a question? Does anyone know why the Democrats never think ahead? an example: They shoved Obama care down are throats and then cry when the tea party rose up and republicans took the house, put the brakes on Obama, They are a strange bunch of folks.

Obamacare (they'll come a day when the cons get angry that we call it that) was not shoved down anybody's throat. It got a vote and was passed when there were more yes votes than no votes. That's the way it's supposed to work

What the hell you trying to spin? please dont make me flame you with facts.

 

[Wry Catcher]

What a short sighted moron.

The majority party now will be the minority party of the future. Taking away minority rights is self destructive...but I doubt either you or Harry can grok that concept.

In a Democracy, 50% of the voters plus one decides most issues. In the Senate a Supermajority is necessary to bring matters to a vote. Why?

In our system of government if a party in power fucked up, they generally lost the next election (at least that was true when we were a Democracy, now that we are a Plutocracy even fuck ups get reelected).

 

[Wyatt earp]

What a short sighted moron.

The majority party now will be the minority party of the future. Taking away minority rights is self destructive...but I doubt either you or Harry can grok that concept.

In a Democracy, 50% of the voters plus one decides most issues. In the Senate a Supermajority is necessary to bring matters to a vote. Why?

In our system of government if a party in power fucked up, they generally lost the next election (at least that was true when we were a Democracy, now that we are a Plutocracy even fuck ups get reelected).

one problem with your statement we are not a "Democracy" damn dont you know what we are? All democracy means is mob rules and we never was, a Plutocracy we never was or ever will be.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Plutocracy. is just something you read and the word of the day for you and I know what it means and your wrong. try qgain....

 

[Erand7899]

What a short sighted moron.

The majority party now will be the minority party of the future. Taking away minority rights is self destructive...but I doubt either you or Harry can grok that concept.

Just a question? Does anyone know why the Democrats never think ahead? an example: They shoved Obama care down are throats and then cry when the tea party rose up and republicans took the house, put the brakes on Obama, They are a strange bunch of folks.

Obamacare (they'll come a day when the cons get angry that we call it that) was not shoved down anybody's throat. It got a vote and was passed when there were more yes votes than no votes. That's the way it's supposed to work

It would have been nice if they had actually read the friggin bill before they voted on it. That is the way it is supposed to work.

And yes, it was shoved down our throats since they had to bribe people to get them to vote for the damn thing.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

In the United States today

20% of the people control 80% or so of the wealth.
Education closes as many doors as it opens
Starting place determines ending place for 80% of people
Wealth is defined as merit
Wealth buys political results
​

The United States today is by definition a plutocracy.

 

[Wry Catcher]

What a short sighted moron.

The majority party now will be the minority party of the future. Taking away minority rights is self destructive...but I doubt either you or Harry can grok that concept.

In a Democracy, 50% of the voters plus one decides most issues. In the Senate a Supermajority is necessary to bring matters to a vote. Why?

In our system of government if a party in power fucked up, they generally lost the next election (at least that was true when we were a Democracy, now that we are a Plutocracy even fuck ups get reelected).

one problem with your statement we are not a "Democracy" damn dont you know what we are? All democracy means is mob rules and we never was, a Plutocracy we never was or ever will be.

Do you ever think about what you write, or do you simply repeat the propaganda of the fringe right?

 

[Wry Catcher]

As I suspected. You never think about what you write and you simply repeat the propaganda of the fringe right. The self defined conservatives are stupid.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

He'll be regretting that move when the Rs take control of the senate next year.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Wow so lets get this straight. The Democrats feel the need to ignore the majority? The founders founded this country insomuch that the minority would never feel oppressed under majority rule. Here we are with the leader of the majority leader in the Senate threatening a "nuclear option" if the minority attempts to block a couple of nominations.

Republicans are going to have a field day in 2014, mark my words!

 

[jon_berzerk]

Wow so lets get this straight. The Democrats feel the need to ignore the majority? The founders founded this country insomuch that the minority would never feel oppressed under majority rule. Here we are with the leader of the majority leader in the Senate threatening a "nuclear option" if the minority attempts to block a couple of nominations.

Republicans are going to have a field day in 2014, mark my words!

they will stoop to any low

 

[Star]

Wow so lets get this straight. The Democrats feel the need to ignore the majority? The founders founded this country insomuch that the minority would never feel oppressed under majority rule. Here we are with the leader of the majority leader in the Senate threatening a "nuclear option" if the minority attempts to block a couple of nominations.

Republicans are going to have a field day in 2014, mark my words!

Putting aside that fact that 41 Senators representing 11% of the population can put a hold, via filibuster, on anything the Senate does, are you claiming the Republicans are only blocking "a couple of nominations"? I seriously doubt, you're smart enough to know what the founding fathers had to say about the filibuster? But g'head tell me - make my day.

Here's little something for you to chew on while trying to find what the foundng fathers had to say about the filibuster;
"The American system of government was built to protect minority voices, but the Founding Fathers explicitly rejected designing the Congress around a supermajority requirement. In Federalist 22, Alexander Hamilton savaged the idea of a supermajority Congress, writing that “its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of government and to substitute the pleasure, caprice or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent or corrupt junta, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority.”"
.

 

[Star]

Not a party issue.

None of the rules of either house have a constitutional basis in party politics. Okay, except in the minds of fucking idiots.

Two changes are inevitable in the senate; the first internal, the second will be imposed by the courts or it will be imposed by the executive ordering the senate into full session during "technical" in-sessions maintained solely for the purpose of ending out of session appointments:

1. End of filibuster by proxy (possible return of blabbermouth filibuster)

2. End of technical "in-session" bogusness.

Article 1, Section Five of the US Constitution includes the following:

Clause 2: Rules

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

Each House can determine its own Rules (assuming a quorum is present), and may punish any of its members. A two-thirds vote is necessary to expel a member. Section 5, Clause 2 does not provide specific guidance to each House regarding when and how each House may change its rules, leaving details to the respective chambers.

At the beginning of each Congress, House and Senate leaders call for a vote approving or disapproving of the Standing Rules, and then propose changes/amendments as proposed.

The leaders of both houses are elected by the members of the party in the majority. So, as Senate Majority Leader, Dingy Harry can propose changes to be voted on by the entire Senate.

The ONLY place in the constitution that specified percentages is in proposing and approving amendments to the constitution itself. 2/3 of each house to send to the states who must ratify by a 3/4 majority.

In the end, the Constitution prescribed six instances in which Congress would require more than a majority vote: impeaching the president, expelling members, overriding a presidential veto of a bill or order, ratifying treaties and amending the Constitution. And as Bondurant writes, “The Framers were aware of the established rule of construction, expressio unius est exclusio alterius, and that by adopting these six exceptions to the principle of majority rule, they were excluding other exceptions.” By contrast, in the Bill of Rights, the Founders were careful to state that “the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
.

 

[Truthseeker420]

What a short sighted moron.

The majority party now will be the minority party of the future. Taking away minority rights is self destructive...but I doubt either you or Harry can grok that concept.

the right of the minority to stop the majority? didn't read that in the Constitution.

The should have to put some effort into a filibuster if they want to stop the majority.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

What a short sighted moron.

The majority party now will be the minority party of the future. Taking away minority rights is self destructive...but I doubt either you or Harry can grok that concept.

Just a question? Does anyone know why the Democrats never think ahead? an example: They shoved Obama care down are throats and then cry when the tea party rose up and republicans took the house, put the brakes on Obama, They are a strange bunch of folks.

Obamacare (they'll come a day when the cons get angry that we call it that) was not shoved down anybody's throat. It got a vote and was passed when there were more yes votes than no votes. That's the way it's supposed to work

Yes, after Pelosi bogged down the House for months, wouldn't allow Congressmen the opportunity to talk with their constituents, threatened blue dog Democrats with their reelections if they didn't "play ball", and closed door back room deals. Yeah, I'm sure that's how it's supposed to work.

"But we have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what's in it" - Nancy Pelosi.

Does that sound like a Democrat who is at all concerned about, and is willing to place her trust into, a well informed "We the People" that wants to know how this bill will drastically impact their lives? Sounds more like Pelosi and Reed were more concerned with pursuing an "ideological" government milestone achievement. One that caters to their OWN best interests, which is to fill a growing insatiable appetite towards attaining greater government power, that establishing new forms of control over the lives of the people.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

In a Democracy, 50% of the voters plus one decides most issues. In the Senate a Supermajority is necessary to bring matters to a vote. Why?

In our system of government if a party in power fucked up, they generally lost the next election (at least that was true when we were a Democracy, now that we are a Plutocracy even fuck ups get reelected).

one problem with your statement we are not a "Democracy" damn dont you know what we are? All democracy means is mob rules and we never was, a Plutocracy we never was or ever will be.

Do you ever think about what you write, or do you simply repeat the propaganda of the fringe right?

I know bear, we had this discussion on a thread once before about the differences between a Democracy and a Republic. Unfortunately, you will find liberals who simply aren't knowledgeable enough in their information to know the difference.

 

[Wolfsister77]

Harry Reid is a terrible majority leader. Just awful. He said he would reform or get rid of the filibuster at the beginning of the new term and all he did was put a couple of very minor rule changes in that make no difference. No matter who is in charge or who is in power, the filibuster goes against the will of the people by allowing the minority to control what happens in the Senate.

 

[tjvh]

Democrats are still bitching about not being able to shove through their utopian agenda's... How sad.