Going Nuclear

[Coyote]

Take the Soviets out of the war and transfer all those German divisions to the west and see who wins.

People like to rewrite history because Stalin was just as big of an asshole as Hitler.

The people in the Soviet Union were brave people and many of them died fighting to stop the Nazis. The numbers of deaths they occurred was major.

I think this is often not realized by many Americans. We've never suffered those kinds of losses. WW2 left a lasting scar on the Russian soul. Their towns and cities are full of statues and monuments testifying to this. Military losses were estimated at over 8,800,000 and civilians 13,700,000 or more killed by the Germans through war (including genocide and reprisals,) died from hunger, disease, lack of medicine during the occupation, or died in German forced labor camps. During the 3-year seige of Leningrad, 1,500,000 died from hunger.

I don't think it's possible for most of us to concieve of those kinds of losses. The bravery of those people, and what they lost should never be diminished for political expediency.

 

[namvet]

Take the Soviets out of the war and transfer all those German divisions to the west and see who wins.

People like to rewrite history because Stalin was just as big of an asshole as Hitler.

The people in the Soviet Union were brave people and many of them died fighting to stop the Nazis. The numbers of deaths they occurred was major.

those so called brave people slaughtered poles right alongside Hilter to

 

[namvet]

Take the Soviets out of the war and transfer all those German divisions to the west and see who wins.

People like to rewrite history because Stalin was just as big of an asshole as Hitler.

The people in the Soviet Union were brave people and many of them died fighting to stop the Nazis. The numbers of deaths they occurred was major.

I think this is often not realized by many Americans. We've never suffered those kinds of losses. WW2 left a lasting scar on the Russian soul. Their towns and cities are full of statues and monuments testifying to this. Military losses were estimated at over 8,800,000 and civilians 13,700,000 or more killed by the Germans through war (including genocide and reprisals,) died from hunger, disease, lack of medicine during the occupation, or died in German forced labor camps. During the 3-year seige of Leningrad, 1,500,000 died from hunger.

I don't think it's possible for most of us to concieve of those kinds of losses. The bravery of those people, and what they lost should never be diminished for political expediency.

and Stalin??? how many Russians did he purge and murder????

 

[namvet]

Really? and all this time I thought it was the Allies that won WW2 , funny thats the the same nations that signed the surrender documents with both Germany and Japan, something else worth nothing too, the USSR did not enter the pacific war till almost at it's end.


Regardless of Soviet cold-war attempts to forget (or at least diminish) the importance of Lend-lease, the total impact of the Lend-Lease shipment for the Soviet war effort and entire national economy can only be characterized as both dramatic and of decisive importance. The outcome of the war on the East front might well have taken another path without Lend-lease. There were undoubtedly big difficulties in the early period: aircraft modified for tropical conditions were delivered to Arctic ports, Russian-language instructions were lacking, a big number of aircraft were grounded because of lack of spa*res, ammunition, bombs or high-octane fuel. Soon many technical problems 'were overcome, Soviet guns and bomb racks were installed, and numerous other technical improvisa*tions were made in Soviet AF frontal units. Soviet specialists developed also ingenious technical improvements and modifi*cations of the original aircraft versions. In parallel the new American technology was systematically investigated in research and design institutes, and the total impact for the modernization of the Soviet aviation industry was certainly immense. The ultimate peak of this learning process was the post-war copying of the Boeing B-29 in only two years time, resulting in the Soviet nuclear-bomb carrier Tu-4.

Aircraft Deliveries

Take the Soviets out of the war and transfer all those German divisions to the west and see who wins.

playing war games ????

 

[saveliberty]

...and this all has what to do with Obama, Reid and Pelosi willing to destroy the country and their party for a bad plan how?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This is why predicting Dem losses in 2010 is a lot like trying to estimate USSR losses during WWII, Dems can do any number of stupid things that could well lead to triple digit House losses, like say going nuclear

Free history lesson, Frankenberry...

The USSR won WWII.

Did you know that they were not able to accurately measure their losses out in the tens of million column? Now, if only you'd give the US military some credit, maybe 5% of the credit and reverence you have for your home team

 

[namvet]

...and this all has what to do with Obama, Reid and Pelosi willing to destroy the country and their party for a bad plan how?

fuck beat outta me

 

[Joe Steel]

If Brown wins, the Dems need to step up to the plate and take it. They need to get the Republicans on board with some kind of reform. The pressure will be on the GOP. They will not be able to obstruct and confuse anymore, but rather try to gain a HC reform bill.

NO ONE, including me, will look favorably on the Dems if they eliminate the filibiuster, as the GOP threatened to do during the Bush years.

Really?

Don't you think majority-rule is a good thing?

Would you prefer a dictatorship?

 

[uscitizen]

It's too bad that those Senators though Joe that you say represent a majority of the American people are not representing the wishes of the majoirty of those they represent. The process in which you speak of will not likely happen regardless of how much some want it because it is a political move that will result in serious problems for the majority, not that they don't have some now. They are more likely to press for passage of the Senate version of the bill in the House as is.

As the MA election showed the majority is just that, the majority. 51% or more.

 

[Joe Steel]

It's too bad that those Senators though Joe that you say represent a majority of the American people are not representing the wishes of the majoirty of those they represent. The process in which you speak of will not likely happen regardless of how much some want it because it is a political move that will result in serious problems for the majority, not that they don't have some now. They are more likely to press for passage of the Senate version of the bill in the House as is.

As the MA election showed the majority is just that, the majority. 51% or more.

Shouldn't the majority of the Senate rule the Senate?

 

[uscitizen]

It's too bad that those Senators though Joe that you say represent a majority of the American people are not representing the wishes of the majoirty of those they represent. The process in which you speak of will not likely happen regardless of how much some want it because it is a political move that will result in serious problems for the majority, not that they don't have some now. They are more likely to press for passage of the Senate version of the bill in the House as is.

As the MA election showed the majority is just that, the majority. 51% or more.

Shouldn't the majority of the Senate rule the Senate?

Majority is what the constitution specifies I think. the rest is just rules the senate made up outside of the constitution.

 

[theHawk]

The election of Scott Brown to the Senate from Massachusetts could be a blessing in disguise. The American People are being held hostage to the demands of special interests by Senate rules which permit a minority, in this case not only of senators but of senators representing a minority of the American People, to block legislation by filibustering. Should Brown be elected, the Senate majority still would be Democratic and they could abolish the filibuster.

It's all explained here: Senate Dems Must "Go Nuclear"

"Going nuclear" would have an added advantage. In addtition to overcoming Republican obstruction, the Democrats would be able to disprove the rumor that they don't have a spine.

I actually agree that filibustering is bad. An up or down vote should be made for every bill. But keep in mind if the Dems were to pass a health bill that the country does not want they will be thrown out of office in the next election and the Republicans would just repeal the legislation with their own before any real change/damage takes effect.

It also doesn't address the fact that Congress passing legislation that would force private citizens to buy health care is completly unconstitutional. So the only way to truely implement a government run health system would be to amend the US Constitution, which would require the 'super majority'.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The election of Scott Brown to the Senate from Massachusetts could be a blessing in disguise. The American People are being held hostage to the demands of special interests by Senate rules which permit a minority, in this case not only of senators but of senators representing a minority of the American People, to block legislation by filibustering. Should Brown be elected, the Senate majority still would be Democratic and they could abolish the filibuster.

It's all explained here: Senate Dems Must "Go Nuclear"

"Going nuclear" would have an added advantage. In addtition to overcoming Republican obstruction, the Democrats would be able to disprove the rumor that they don't have a spine.

Remind us again how when the Republicans threatened this Under Bush you guys went APE SHIT BAT HOUSE CRAZY and INSISTED it would be tantamount to a criminal act by Congress?

 

[Joe Steel]

As the MA election showed the majority is just that, the majority. 51% or more.

Shouldn't the majority of the Senate rule the Senate?

Majority is what the constitution specifies I think. the rest is just rules the senate made up outside of the constitution.

The Constitution requires super-majorities for a few things but allows each body to make its own rules. That means the filibuster isn't prohibited by the Constitution. However, it's inconsistent with the principles of democracy.

 

[slackjawed]

Let the democrats continue to claim they have the support of the electorate when we all know better.
Let the republicans claim to have the support of the electorate when they are simply the least poor choice.
Both miss the point.
November's election will be interesting, and I believe we will get the hope and change we were promised when most if not all of the incumbents are tossed out without regard to party.
Let them all continue their business as usual.

 

[slackjawed]

Shouldn't the majority of the Senate rule the Senate?

Majority is what the constitution specifies I think. the rest is just rules the senate made up outside of the constitution.

The Constitution requires super-majorities for a few things but allows each body to make its own rules. That means the filibuster isn't prohibited by the Constitution. However, it's inconsistent with the principles of democracy.

When a majority of the electorate does not want something the majority of the senate is trying to pass, there is a valid use for filibuster.
When I can't find even one person in the town I live in to support the healythccare bill, not one, I would say the voters don't want it.
I don't know where Joe steel lives but this part of the country is center right, not center progressive like he claims.
It doesn't matter how many times you say it or how authoritarian you make it sound, it's pure unadultrated bullshit.

 

[California Girl]

Shouldn't the majority of the Senate rule the Senate?

Majority is what the constitution specifies I think. the rest is just rules the senate made up outside of the constitution.

The Constitution requires super-majorities for a few things but allows each body to make its own rules. That means the filibuster isn't prohibited by the Constitution. However, it's inconsistent with the principles of democracy.

Now that the progressives got a severe ass kicking in MA, are youstill keen on using the nuke option?

 

[namvet]

lets see if the craps try and nuke HC before Brown is seated.

 

[saveliberty]

It's too bad that those Senators though Joe that you say represent a majority of the American people are not representing the wishes of the majoirty of those they represent. The process in which you speak of will not likely happen regardless of how much some want it because it is a political move that will result in serious problems for the majority, not that they don't have some now. They are more likely to press for passage of the Senate version of the bill in the House as is.

As the MA election showed the majority is just that, the majority. 51% or more.

Shouldn't the majority of the Senate rule the Senate?

I guess that makes sense, if the point was doing what the Senate wants. I was under the impression they represented the people and what we want. Thinking like yours is what has us in the pickle we are in. The filibuster is to prevent the loss of rights for the minoirty. You know, those people you claim to support all the time.

 

[Joe Steel]

The election of Scott Brown to the Senate from Massachusetts could be a blessing in disguise. The American People are being held hostage to the demands of special interests by Senate rules which permit a minority, in this case not only of senators but of senators representing a minority of the American People, to block legislation by filibustering. Should Brown be elected, the Senate majority still would be Democratic and they could abolish the filibuster.

It's all explained here: Senate Dems Must "Go Nuclear"

"Going nuclear" would have an added advantage. In addtition to overcoming Republican obstruction, the Democrats would be able to disprove the rumor that they don't have a spine.

I actually agree that filibustering is bad. An up or down vote should be made for every bill. But keep in mind if the Dems were to pass a health bill that the country does not want they will be thrown out of office in the next election and the Republicans would just repeal the legislation with their own before any real change/damage takes effect.

It also doesn't address the fact that Congress passing legislation that would force private citizens to buy health care is completly unconstitutional. So the only way to truely implement a government run health system would be to amend the US Constitution, which would require the 'super majority'.

America dislikes the bill because it doesn't go far enough. Democrats had to take the teeth out of health care reform to get by the threat of a filibuster. In the absence of that threat, it would be pure and simple and America would love. We could have universal, single-payer or, at a minimum, the public option. That's what the American People want.