The 112th Congress Thread

[Dr Mabuse]

Originally Posted by CRM114

There is ZERO chance of anything meaningful. Well, unless you mean cuts that will effect the working military man and not the contractors.

I was thinking that as well.

[classicman2]

Originally Posted by CRM114

And the Repubs did. They just filibustered everything.

And the Democrats did the same thing when the Repubs were in power.

That's the way the Senate operates.

[classicman2]

I don't want a simple majority to make really important decisions. The House does that.

[classicman2]

Nancy Pelosi is really popular with the Democratic Caucus.

When the vote was taken today on who would be Speaker, 19 Democrats didn't vote for Nancy.

[Venusian]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110106/...s_gop_promises

Shocker. GOP is already breaking promises.

I don't entirely understand what the article is talkign about for the $100B. I guess 5 months has already passed in the fiscal year so they can't do $100B is 7 months? Give me the budget. I can find places to cut it

[CRM114]

Originally Posted by classicman2

And the Democrats did the same thing when the Repubs were in power.

That's the way the Senate operates.

Actually, that's not true. The use of the filibuster the past four years was unprecedented. You've been duped. Notice that huge spike? Is that the "same thing" as the one before it?

[classicman2]

I haven't been duped at all. It's you that's failed to understand what a filibuster is.

The number of cloture votes doesn't necessarily indicate the number of times the minority has 'filibustered.' Quite often the majority leader brings a motion to proceed and a cloture motion to the floor when he 'introduces' the bill to be considered. Tom Dascle made a habit out of it.

In addition - what is considered a filibuster? What used to be considered to be a filibuster is no longer what is practiced - continuous speech without yielding the floor - bringing cots to the floor for the senators to sleep on - etc.

Delaying tactics doesn't necessarily constitute a filibuster.

[CRM114]

Originally Posted by classicman2

Delaying tactics doesn't necessarily constitute a filibuster.

Of course it does, for the most part. The Repubs purposefully used "delaying tactics" an unprecedented number of times in the previous four years for no other reason than to be obstructionist.

[Red Dog]

The Dems were saints. They saved their filibusters for the evil hispanics and blacks that Dubya nominated to the bench.

[classicman2]

Originally Posted by CRM114

Of course it does, for the most part. The Repubs purposefully used "delaying tactics" an unprecedented number of times in the previous four years for no other reason than to be obstructionist.

for the most part

When you study up on Senate procedure - get back with the forum.

[mosquitobite]

Originally Posted by Red Dog

The Dems were saints. They saved their filibusters for the evil hispanics and blacks that Dubya nominated to the bench.

LOL!

[classicman2]

The House is currently voting on a measure that would reduce the office budgets by 5%.

I guess every little bit helps.

btw: Some Democrats joined in on the reading of The Constitution.

[Jason]

Originally Posted by classicman2

btw: Some Democrats joined in on the reading of The Constitution.

Couldn't get enough republicans to show up, I guess...

[JasonF]

Did they read the part about all "other persons" counting as three-fifths of a person?

[kvrdave]

Originally Posted by CRM114

Of course it does, for the most part.

Bold statement.

You forgot "sort of."

[crazyronin]

Originally Posted by JasonF

Did they read the part about all "other persons" counting as three-fifths of a person?

Most carbon blobs have no idea of the circumstances surrounding the three-fifths compromise. I know you're just trolling so I'll just

[kvrdave]

They also don't know that slavery was one of the main issues that formed the Republican party. Democrats liked to have slaves and Republicans thought it was wrong. Democrats thought it was a wonderful thing. Now they simply think it is good to tell black people that they are still slaves and need Democrats to survive from the onslaught of Republicans.

[JasonF]

Originally Posted by kvrdave

They also don't know that slavery was one of the main issues that formed the Republican party. Democrats liked to have slaves and Republicans thought it was wrong. Democrats thought it was a wonderful thing. Now they simply think it is good to tell black people that they are still slaves and need Democrats to survive from the onslaught of Republicans.

Sorry, dude. Modern Republicans don't get to claim the anti-slavery bona fides of the early Republicans unless they also claim their commitment to a strong federal government at the expense of the states, not to mention the strong progressive policies of early 20th-century Republicans.

[crazyronin]

Originally Posted by JasonF

Sorry, dude. Modern Republicans don't get to claim the anti-slavery bona fides of the early Republicans unless they also claim their commitment to a strong federal government at the expense of the states, not to mention the strong progressive policies of early 20th-century Republicans.

"Dude", counselor? I'd remind you of the sacred decorum of this hallowed place.

The proper term is "boogerhead."

[classicman2]

Originally Posted by JasonF

Did they read the part about all "other persons" counting as three-fifths of a person?

No, they didn't. They used the 'updated' version. I really don't know why. They read the amendments also.

[CRM114]

Originally Posted by classicman2

for the most part

When you study up on Senate procedure - get back with the forum.

Are you saying the majority of the cloture votes are not associated with the filibuster?

[CRM114]

Originally Posted by Jason

Couldn't get enough republicans to show up, I guess...

I noticed Sean Hannity made out the Democrats lack of support for the dog and pony show because they are "embarrassed" of the Constitution. (His word.) It was astounding.

Perhaps member of the Congress thought it a waste of government time to participate in a 6th grade reading circle? The entire display was embarrassing not the document.

[CRM114]

Originally Posted by kvrdave

Bold statement.

You forgot "sort of."

It's an accurate statement. Not all cloture votes are associated with filibusters. Explaining the process is maddening and you an cman disputing the graph is laughable.

[Red Dog]

Originally Posted by classicman2

No, they didn't. They used the 'updated' version. I really don't know why. They read the amendments also.

They apparently didn't read the 18th and 21st amendments. That's pretty sad. I guess neither party wanted to be reminded that's what it used to take before the Commerce Clause meant everything under the sun and the 10th amendment got neutered by FDR, Congress, and the SCt.

[classicman2]

Originally Posted by CRM114

Are you saying the majority of the cloture votes are not associated with the filibuster?

I don't really know. I don't keep a record. You don't either.

And - what is meant by a filibuster? Is the addition of many amendments to some piece of legislation a filibuster? It's most assuredly is a delaying tactic. But, I don't believe that means it's a filibuster.

The last real filibuster I can remember is when the Republican Senator from NY - I forget his name - actually filibustered a measure concerning the F22 - I believe.

The media throws the term around a lot - generally when the Repubs use delaying tactics. When the Democrats used them, the media refrained somewhat from the use of the word.

Name: Al D'Amato