Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

lacrew_2000 · 08-03-2010, 08:13 AM

Lets go through this very s-l-o-w-l-y.

The Democrats have a majority in the House and Senate. There is a Democrat in the WH. If procedural BS and parlamentary tricks are preventing a bill from getting passed....its not the republicans who are doing it.

For the last two years, every time there is righteous indignation about the republicans killing a bill, its an outright lie...they haven't been able to kill anything.

Its not that I even like the republicans that much, but at least they have a shred of integrity. If a politician tells you that he is a knight in shining armor, here to save people....you really should be skeptical. That slight aftertaste is poison in the kool-aid

nsafun05 · 08-03-2010, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Longermonger

http://www.constitution.org/cons/ann...h_crockett.htm

FABRICATION!!!

Myth Busted!

Ann Toplovich
Executive Director
Tennessee Historical Society:1

Dime novelist Edward S. Ellis: 0

Final Score.

Am I the only one that can smell this bullshit? You guys need to get your noses checked.

While this may be a myth, there is wisdom in it.

CuteOldGuy · 08-03-2010, 12:25 PM

I don't think the myth is busted, simply challenged. But the wisdom behind the myth is solid. Some people believe that Jesus was mythological, does it follow then that we should not love each other?

Oh, the Madison quote is genuine.

Longermonger · 08-06-2010, 12:57 AM

...so it doesn't matter that it is a LIE, because you like the LIE???

Oh, and people have been loving each other long before Jesus was (allegedly) alive.

Crew, it IS the Republicans that have been abusing the parliamentary procedure known as a filibuster. So, for starters, you're 100% wrong on that fact. You're a pretty smart guy, so I know you know that it (currently) takes more than just a simple majority to pass a bill that the majority party wants to pass. The minority party would just endlessly talk it to death, etc. The good news is that you're in luck! That might change next year.

The parliamentary procedures (rules) are set at the beginning of every Congress...and THEN it only takes a simple majority to get rid of the filibuster rule.

One last thing...they didn't drink Kool-Aid at the Jonestown Massacre. It was Flavor Aid. Another myth busted, I guess. Are you really serious telling me to be skeptical?!?! HA HA HA HA HA

lacrew_2000 · 08-06-2010, 07:38 AM

"Crew, it IS the Republicans that have been abusing the parliamentary procedure known as a filibuster. So, for starters, you're 100% wrong on that fact."

For starters, the record for use of the filibuster IS the 1999-2000 session...democrats being in the minority.

Secondly, we are not talking about a filibuster here. We are discussing proceedings in the House, where the filibuster has not been used since the 19th century.

For our next trick, lets fight over the color of the sky.

nsafun05 · 08-06-2010, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Longermonger

...so it doesn't matter that it is a LIE, because you like the LIE???

Are you aware that many truths can be told through a story? For example, the little boy who cried wolf. But in your world if someone told you that story you'd call them a liar instead of heeding the wisdom of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Longermonger

Oh, and people have been loving each other long before Jesus was (allegedly) alive.

Would you say this about Muhammad? Budha?

As far as the filibuster is concerned, it is in there for a purpose and that is to keep the majority from enacting everything they want to do. What if the Republicans were the majority and they wanted to cut the tax rate to 10% for everyone, make it a federal law that every classroom have the 10 Commandments posted in them, that gay marriage was a crime, that federal troops would patrol the borders and detain anyone they caught crossing? I bet you'd be the first in line praising the filibuster.

So while you show your disdain for it now, if and when control goes to the Republicans you better hope that the Dems don't adjust the filibuster rule or you may find out how much you actually like it.

CuteOldGuy · 08-06-2010, 10:42 PM

I just think if people want to give to worthy causes they should do it, but not force others to do it. And now with the budget the way it is, we have to borrow the money from China to give it to these folks. I guess I'm just one of those neanderthals that thinks that tax money should only be spent on the necessary activities of government, and that charity should be voluntary and from one's heart.

Longermonger · 08-08-2010, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nsafun05

Would you say this about Muhammad? Budha?

What about them? Where are you going with this? My point is that Jesus wasn't the inventor of love. It was around thousands of years before he was even (allegedly) alive. How do you think all of those people he (allegedly) preached to got there? Do you think people just raped each other to make children before Jesus (allegedly) appeared on Earth? No, they loved each other.

Longermonger · 08-08-2010, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lacrew_2000

For starters, the record for use of the filibuster IS the 1999-2000 session...democrats being in the minority.

Secondly, we are not talking about a filibuster here. We are discussing proceedings in the House, where the filibuster has not been used since the 19th century.

...maybe for actual filibusters, but the threat of filibustering is something that Senate Republicans have been abusing quite a lot lately. They've double the previous record and don't plan on stopping until they've broken that branch of the government. Oh, and if you read your own post at the top of the page you'll see that we are talking about proceedings in the Senate.

As one of the other posters mentioned, we should all be scared of what Republicans would do if they were in power and there was no Rule 22. But I like to think that the lack of a filibuster rule would allow Republicans to expose themselves as the nutjobs that some of them are. Besides, Obama has the veto.

lacrew_2000 · 08-09-2010, 09:16 AM

Oh, I thought when you were talking about filibusters...you were talking about..well...filibusters.

My mistake.

But the topic has to do with the Houe of Representatives...this is where Weiner's rant happened.

I say again.....no filibuster in the house.

So why the hell are we even talking about that?

Why don't we talk about the democrat's refusal to allow amendments, using the '9-11' brand to try and corner the republicans to vote for the bill (with ridiculous add-ons which they have no opportunity to change by amendment). The house rules, which they can change at any time btw, put such a bill on the suspension agenda, requiring a supermajority vote.

The dems cynically tried to use Sep 11 to score cheap political points..and they got called on it. Has absolutely nothing to do with a filibuster.

kcbigpapa · 08-09-2010, 03:26 PM

LA, in this instance the Dems are not using 9/11 as a cheap ploy, but rather it is because of 9/11 that these people are sick. It would be hard to separate the two, the sick and 9/11, in this instance. But, about the rest of the bill, I haven't read enough of it to be well informed on the issue.

nsafun05 · 08-09-2010, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Longermonger

What about them? Where are you going with this? My point is that Jesus wasn't the inventor of love. It was around thousands of years before he was even (allegedly) alive. How do you think all of those people he (allegedly) preached to got there? Do you think people just raped each other to make children before Jesus (allegedly) appeared on Earth? No, they loved each other.

Where I'm going with this is a simple question. Would you say that Muhammad or Buddha allegedly existed or is this something you just say about Jesus?

dirty dog · 08-09-2010, 04:32 PM

NSA to belong to the communist party you cannot believe in religion.

lacrew_2000 · 08-09-2010, 04:41 PM

This is what I have learned about the bill:

First, it is not just for responders...people who lived and worked near the site are also eligible.

Because this is a very broad net, the Democrats (committee) actually put a provision in it, preventing people currently on the Terrorist Watch List from getting benefits under the bill. It makes sense...lots of people can claim to have lived and worked in the vicinity...and it would be foolish to give aid money to potential terrorists.

This making sense, some Republicans (including King who actually supports the notion of the bill) decided to up the ante...how about adding an ammendment stating no illegal immigrants get benefits either. If you live in Kansas, and endured the Moran and Tihart campaign ads, you can almost visualize the anti-incumbent ads that could be run in the next primary...a deep menacing voice over says "John Doe voted to give illegal immigrants September 11 benefit money". So, the Republicans tried to cover their ass, and just add one stupid ammendment.

The Democrats then saw an OPPORTUNITY. They suspended the rules, and allowed no amendments or debate. This suspension of the rules gets the bill put on the 'suspension agenda'....where ordinary everyday crap like naming post offices and BS like that gets passed. The only provision - it must now be by a 2/3 vote.

The Democrats saw this as a lose/lose situation for the Republicans. They either had to set themselves up for a negative campaign ad...or get labelled as voting against Sep 11 responders.

Keep in mind, nothing in the world stopped them from putting it on the ordinary agenda, subject to a majority vote (which the democrats can easily get)....but then they can't use the opportunity (Sep 11 responders) to put the Republicans in a box.

...but the bill didn't pass. So what - another opportunity. Send Weiner out to make a scene, make it look like the Republicans blocked the bill (impossible for them to do in the minority)...and probably next session it will get passed.

This is why I believe it was cynical. If the Democrats in the House were serious about the bill, they would have allowed amendments, voted on the immigration amendment - which would have failed, and easily passed the bill.

I really don't like the Republicans that much...its just that they aren't nearly as good at playing these games as the Democrats are...and these games insult the intelligence of the American people.

kcbigpapa · 08-09-2010, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lacrew_2000

I really don't like the Republicans that much...its just that they aren't nearly as good at playing these games as the Democrats are...and these games insult the intelligence of the American people.

I absolutely disagree. I think both know how to play the game and both of them are equal pieces of shit in my book.