NOW the GOP wants to change the Filibuster rules?

[Faun]

It is beyond HYPOCRITICAL that NaziCons now want to abolish the Senate filibuster. They don't like it when BOTH sides can play the same silly fucking un-American games.

As it is also hypocritical for you to whine about this, while Uncle Harry changed rules when convenient.
Cam you link me the thread where you bitched about him?

STFU

Did Harry ever try to use the so-called "nuclear option" to end filibustering?

Yes


10/07/11 01:10 AM EDT

In a shocking development Thursday evening, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) triggered a rarely used procedural option informally called the “nuclear option” to change the Senate rules.

Reid and 50 members of his caucus voted to change Senate rules unilaterally to prevent Republicans from forcing votes on uncomfortable amendments after the chamber has voted to move to final passage of a bill.

Reid’s coup passed by a vote of 51-48, leaving Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) fuming.
Reid triggers nuclear option to change Senate rules end repeat filibusters TheHill

Now answer my question, you dishonest fuck.
Where is your thread bitching about it

Wow, for a so-called Christian you sure are a nasty little fucker. I forgive you...

Why Harry Reid Had to Use the ‘Nuclear Option’ - The New York Times

You went from denying it to trying to justify it.

I warned then that this would happen if the GOP gained control of the Senate.

Each and every time the Democrats muck with the system to pass their radical ideology onto the rest of us, you can count on that same behavior from the GOP.

That is why in the past (before that criminal Reid gained control of the Senate) both parties took extraordinary care to keep the rules intact so that the free for all would not be used against them in the future.

Now, live with the consequences of your immature pandering.

A stroll down memory lane ... Bill First (R) threatened to use the nuclear option in 2005 because Democrats were filibustering Bush's judicial nominees. He didn't have to after Democrats agreed to let some through for an up/down vote. Reid then made the same threat for the same reason as Frist. Unlike Frist, however, Reid carried through with his threat after Republicans still refused to let Obama's judicial nominees face an up/down vote in the Senate.

 

[Faun]

Umm..okay then the post is still wrong since Reid held majority leader in the Senate since 2007, which would make it 8 years....

Irrelevant.
Reid changed the rules, after Dems threatened the GOP that doing so would bring Armaggedon. Dems lie. They are lying scumbags. ANd now its time for the GOP to pay them back.
Scrap the filibuster. Just scrap it entirely.

Yes, I think they should do that, I really do. It will not change a thing and they will have to sit there totally impotent by their own hand come 2017.

Currently the GOP does not have enough votges to overcome Democrat obstruction. With a simple majority bills will go to Obama and he can live with vetoing every one of them.

I think he can easily live with vetoing shit since he is not running again so where is the strategic advantage to getting rid of the filibuster?

Obama's legacy will be the president who obstructed Congress. Somehow I dont think thats what he wants to be remembered for.

As usual, the forum jester entertains the crowd with his usual idiocies. Here, on planet Earth, Obama's had a grand total of 3 vetoes. You have to go back more than a century to a president who served only a matter of months to find a president issuing fewer vetoes than Obama. You have to go waaaay back, almost two centuries, to the 8th president, Martin Van Buren, to find one who served a full term and issued fewer vetoes than Obama.

Presidential Vetoes

 

[Papageorgio]

McCarthy: GOP Should Abolish Filibuster
McCarthy GOP Should Abolish Filibuster - Breitbart
You can't make this shit up!
The GOP sets records for the number of attempted Senate clotures when they aren't in power, but when they gain power, all of a sudden they want to change the rules.
Does anyone think the Dems will agree? They had been crying and moaning about the GOP's historical clotures approach. Now, how will they feel about it now?
All this "party first" by both parties continues as America continues to spin it's wheels.
View attachment 37343

What goes around comes around. BOTH parties play these games and the both feign outrage when the games are played.

You partisan nutters crack me up.

 

[Darkwind]

As it is also hypocritical for you to whine about this, while Uncle Harry changed rules when convenient.
Cam you link me the thread where you bitched about him?

STFU

Did Harry ever try to use the so-called "nuclear option" to end filibustering?

Yes


10/07/11 01:10 AM EDT

In a shocking development Thursday evening, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) triggered a rarely used procedural option informally called the “nuclear option” to change the Senate rules.

Reid and 50 members of his caucus voted to change Senate rules unilaterally to prevent Republicans from forcing votes on uncomfortable amendments after the chamber has voted to move to final passage of a bill.

Reid’s coup passed by a vote of 51-48, leaving Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) fuming.
Reid triggers nuclear option to change Senate rules end repeat filibusters TheHill

Now answer my question, you dishonest fuck.
Where is your thread bitching about it

Wow, for a so-called Christian you sure are a nasty little fucker. I forgive you...

Why Harry Reid Had to Use the ‘Nuclear Option’ - The New York Times

You went from denying it to trying to justify it.

I warned then that this would happen if the GOP gained control of the Senate.

Each and every time the Democrats muck with the system to pass their radical ideology onto the rest of us, you can count on that same behavior from the GOP.

That is why in the past (before that criminal Reid gained control of the Senate) both parties took extraordinary care to keep the rules intact so that the free for all would not be used against them in the future.

Now, live with the consequences of your immature pandering.

A stroll down memory lane ... Bill First (R) threatened to use the nuclear option in 2005 because Democrats were filibustering Bush's judicial nominees. He didn't have to after Democrats agreed to let some through for an up/down vote. Reid then made the same threat for the same reason as Frist. Unlike Frist, however, Reid carried through with his threat after Republicans still refused to let Obama's judicial nominees face an up/down vote in the Senate.

Get back to Me when you can accurately describe what it was that I wrote.

 

[Faun]

Did Harry ever try to use the so-called "nuclear option" to end filibustering?

Yes


10/07/11 01:10 AM EDT

In a shocking development Thursday evening, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) triggered a rarely used procedural option informally called the “nuclear option” to change the Senate rules.

Reid and 50 members of his caucus voted to change Senate rules unilaterally to prevent Republicans from forcing votes on uncomfortable amendments after the chamber has voted to move to final passage of a bill.

Reid’s coup passed by a vote of 51-48, leaving Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) fuming.
Reid triggers nuclear option to change Senate rules end repeat filibusters TheHill

Now answer my question, you dishonest fuck.
Where is your thread bitching about it

Wow, for a so-called Christian you sure are a nasty little fucker. I forgive you...

Why Harry Reid Had to Use the ‘Nuclear Option’ - The New York Times

You went from denying it to trying to justify it.

I warned then that this would happen if the GOP gained control of the Senate.

Each and every time the Democrats muck with the system to pass their radical ideology onto the rest of us, you can count on that same behavior from the GOP.

That is why in the past (before that criminal Reid gained control of the Senate) both parties took extraordinary care to keep the rules intact so that the free for all would not be used against them in the future.

Now, live with the consequences of your immature pandering.

A stroll down memory lane ... Bill First (R) threatened to use the nuclear option in 2005 because Democrats were filibustering Bush's judicial nominees. He didn't have to after Democrats agreed to let some through for an up/down vote. Reid then made the same threat for the same reason as Frist. Unlike Frist, however, Reid carried through with his threat after Republicans still refused to let Obama's judicial nominees face an up/down vote in the Senate.

Get back to Me when you can accurately describe what it was that I wrote.

I showed your claim of how both parties took extraordinary care to protect the rules as the delusional tribe you intended it to be. In reality, Republican leadership sought to do what Reid did and the only reason Frist didn't pull the trigger is because Democrats agreed to not filibuster some of Bush's nominees.

No skin off my back if you don't want to address that.

 

[Darkwind]

Yes


10/07/11 01:10 AM EDT

In a shocking development Thursday evening, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) triggered a rarely used procedural option informally called the “nuclear option” to change the Senate rules.

Reid and 50 members of his caucus voted to change Senate rules unilaterally to prevent Republicans from forcing votes on uncomfortable amendments after the chamber has voted to move to final passage of a bill.

Reid’s coup passed by a vote of 51-48, leaving Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) fuming.
Reid triggers nuclear option to change Senate rules end repeat filibusters TheHill

Now answer my question, you dishonest fuck.
Where is your thread bitching about it

Wow, for a so-called Christian you sure are a nasty little fucker. I forgive you...

Why Harry Reid Had to Use the ‘Nuclear Option’ - The New York Times

You went from denying it to trying to justify it.

I warned then that this would happen if the GOP gained control of the Senate.

Each and every time the Democrats muck with the system to pass their radical ideology onto the rest of us, you can count on that same behavior from the GOP.

That is why in the past (before that criminal Reid gained control of the Senate) both parties took extraordinary care to keep the rules intact so that the free for all would not be used against them in the future.

Now, live with the consequences of your immature pandering.

A stroll down memory lane ... Bill First (R) threatened to use the nuclear option in 2005 because Democrats were filibustering Bush's judicial nominees. He didn't have to after Democrats agreed to let some through for an up/down vote. Reid then made the same threat for the same reason as Frist. Unlike Frist, however, Reid carried through with his threat after Republicans still refused to let Obama's judicial nominees face an up/down vote in the Senate.

Get back to Me when you can accurately describe what it was that I wrote.

I showed your claim of how both parties took extraordinary care to protect the rules as the delusional tribe you intended it to be. In reality, Republican leadership sought to do what Reid did and the only reason Frist didn't pull the trigger is because Democrats agreed to not filibuster some of Bush's nominees.

No skin off my back if you don't want to address that.

You showed nothing of the sort. You listed Frist as one who was threatening to change the rules.

Did he?

You did NOT list prior Congress' at all, and how they dealt with filibusters nor did you speak at all about how they did not change the rules because they understood that the Pandora box would then be open for the other party when they gained control. In fact, they took extraordinary care not to change those rules and often went about making deals or trying to compromise.

I did not even discuss any reasons for the change in the rules. Only that the consequences of one party changing the rules would lead to the other side changing the rules the moment they gain power.

Which is what the topic of the discussion is.

Like I said, get back to Me when you can accurately describe what I wrote.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Priceless......

 

[JakeStarkey]

To both parties and their supporters who want it for their side but yell when the other side wants to do it.

Get rid of cloture. The President is the flag bearer for his side side. Neither Bush nor Obama would have the slightest worry about vetoing bills they did not want.

For instance, if the GOP passed the HSA bill with the EO anti amendments, the President could speak on national TV asking why the Pubs were placing immigration issues at the same level of national importance as funding HSA, then sign the veto on TV in front of God, angels, and all witnesses.

 

[rightwinger]

I would love to see Republicans end filibuster once and for all

And then let them live with it

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Dems are the Party of No

 

[The Rabbi]

Irrelevant.
Reid changed the rules, after Dems threatened the GOP that doing so would bring Armaggedon. Dems lie. They are lying scumbags. ANd now its time for the GOP to pay them back.
Scrap the filibuster. Just scrap it entirely.

Yes, I think they should do that, I really do. It will not change a thing and they will have to sit there totally impotent by their own hand come 2017.

Currently the GOP does not have enough votges to overcome Democrat obstruction. With a simple majority bills will go to Obama and he can live with vetoing every one of them.

I think he can easily live with vetoing shit since he is not running again so where is the strategic advantage to getting rid of the filibuster?

Obama's legacy will be the president who obstructed Congress. Somehow I dont think thats what he wants to be remembered for.

You mean the guy with the second lowest vetoes in history. What's the legacy for the other 40+ presidents....
Remember twice many people voted for Obama as did for Congress...

If he vetoes every bill in the last 2 years that is what he will be remembered for. He's the guy who couldn't reach across the aisle, the guy who wasnt a team player, the guy who put himself above America.
And his party supported him. Who wants 4 more years of that with President Hillary?

 

[RKMBrown]

Dems are the Party of No

Dems are against progress!

 

[J.E.D]

The rules have already been changed. The dems did it. I wouldn't even pretend to need 60 votes fuck them. We get 51 and the law passes.

Dems changed the rules for nominees. They didn't change the rules for votes on legislation. 51 doesn't get you shit. Deal with it.

 

[The Rabbi]

The rules have already been changed. The dems did it. I wouldn't even pretend to need 60 votes fuck them. We get 51 and the law passes.

Dems changed the rules for nominees. They didn't change the rules for votes on legislation. 51 doesn't get you shit. Deal with it.

Effectively it's a distinction withut a difference.

 

[BlindBoo]

And I bet you all bitched when the Democrats didn't just want to change them?

THEY didn't just want to, they damn did it so they could screw us all over

and if I recall there was much cheering and gloating from the libs/dems base

They never changed the rules regarding legislation. Period.

 

[rightwinger]

The rules have already been changed. The dems did it. I wouldn't even pretend to need 60 votes fuck them. We get 51 and the law passes.

Dems changed the rules for nominees. They didn't change the rules for votes on legislation. 51 doesn't get you shit. Deal with it.

Effectively it's a distinction withut a difference.

Huge difference

Do Republicans want to go Full Monty?

 

[The Rabbi]

The rules have already been changed. The dems did it. I wouldn't even pretend to need 60 votes fuck them. We get 51 and the law passes.

Dems changed the rules for nominees. They didn't change the rules for votes on legislation. 51 doesn't get you shit. Deal with it.

Effectively it's a distinction withut a difference.

Huge difference

Do Republicans want to go Full Monty?

There's no difference whatsoever. There was never a separate filibuster for nominees and a differnt one for legislation.

 

[J.E.D]

The rules have already been changed. The dems did it. I wouldn't even pretend to need 60 votes fuck them. We get 51 and the law passes.

Dems changed the rules for nominees. They didn't change the rules for votes on legislation. 51 doesn't get you shit. Deal with it.

Effectively it's a distinction withut a difference.

no

 

[BlindBoo]

Effectively it's a distinction withut a difference.

Sure it is, for people who get their opinions from the propaganda pundits and headlines.

 

[BlindBoo]

The rules have already been changed. The dems did it. I wouldn't even pretend to need 60 votes fuck them. We get 51 and the law passes.

Dems changed the rules for nominees. They didn't change the rules for votes on legislation. 51 doesn't get you shit. Deal with it.

Effectively it's a distinction withut a difference.

Huge difference

Do Republicans want to go Full Monty?

There's no difference whatsoever. There was never a separate filibuster for nominees and a differnt one for legislation.

The cloture rule changed. But with the quality of the MSM in this country it is no wonder.......

Senate Goes Nuclear Changes Filibuster Rules - ABC News