Then and Now . . . Hypocrisy of the Left

[davjohns 1]

Both parties filibuster when they are in the minority. Both parties scream for an 'up or down' vote when they are in the majority. Both parties are hypocrits.

Do any of you ever tire of letting a party make up your mind for you?

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[beowulf 1]

Are you directing this question to me? I have never voted for either of those parties. What the Democrats have done is make it so the minority party can't filibuster at all now. Now as long as the Democrats can muster a simple majority they can pass anything they want through the Senate except nominations for the Supreme court.

[DanG 1]

Quote

What the Democrats have done is make it so the minority party can't filibuster at all now.

I think this is only for nominations, not legislation.

- Dan G

[beowulf 1]

Yeah I know I wasn't that specific.

[turtlespeed 212]

beowulf

Yes and no
They are upset for good reason but I think when they have control of the Senate they won't reverse it.

The out going senate, if they lose power will reverse it, in the lame duck session, before they leave office.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[beowulf 1]

turtlespeed

***

Yes and no
They are upset for good reason but I think when they have control of the Senate they won't reverse it.

The out going senate, if they lose power will reverse it, in the lame duck session, before they leave office.


That might happen, but unfortunately the precedent has been set. So now it makes it more likely that a Senate in the future will decide to change it back when they feel the need to do so.

[DanG 1]

Quote

The out going senate, if they lose power will reverse it, in the lame duck session, before they leave office.

Why bother? If they're losing power, the incoming Senate can just change it back.

- Dan G

[turtlespeed 212]

DanG

Why bother?

Because they could set rules that kept it from giving that power to their opponents.

Its called rigging the game.

After all, if you don't like the rules, just change them to suit your needs.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kallend 1,623]

turtlespeed

***

Why bother?

Because they could set rules that kept it from giving that power to their opponents.

Its called rigging the game.

After all, if you don't like the rules, just change them to suit your needs.

Rather like congressional district boundaries, eh?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,623]

rushmc

******It's politics as usual .

The whole nuclear option thing is bullshit anyway. It seems that a simple majority was how things were done for most of the time that we've had houses of Congress; this whole filibuster-as-normal thing started fairly recently.

Wendy P.

Fillibuster has been around a long time. It's nothing new.

Over 200 years worth in one fashion or another

And it has been used and abused by both sides for just as long

On the topic of ABUSE, half of the filibusters launched against presidential nominees since the start of the Republic have been against President Obama’s choices.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

kallend

On the topic of ABUSE, half of the filibusters launched against presidential nominees since the start of the Republic have been against President Obama’s choices.

well, he shouldn't have nominated Senator Palpatine. Or Jar Jar.

[rushmc 18]

DanG

Quote

The out going senate, if they lose power will reverse it, in the lame duck session, before they leave office.

Why bother? If they're losing power, the incoming Senate can just change it back.

Because of the political bat shit they can fling

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

kallend

*********It's politics as usual .

The whole nuclear option thing is bullshit anyway. It seems that a simple majority was how things were done for most of the time that we've had houses of Congress; this whole filibuster-as-normal thing started fairly recently.

Wendy P.

Fillibuster has been around a long time. It's nothing new.

Over 200 years worth in one fashion or another

And it has been used and abused by both sides for just as long

On the topic of ABUSE, half of the filibusters launched against presidential nominees since the start of the Republic have been against President Obama’s choices.

Tell us all oh knowledgeable one. How many have the denied Obama?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,623]

rushmc

************It's politics as usual .

The whole nuclear option thing is bullshit anyway. It seems that a simple majority was how things were done for most of the time that we've had houses of Congress; this whole filibuster-as-normal thing started fairly recently.

Wendy P.

Fillibuster has been around a long time. It's nothing new.

Over 200 years worth in one fashion or another

And it has been used and abused by both sides for just as long

On the topic of ABUSE, half of the filibusters launched against presidential nominees since the start of the Republic have been against President Obama’s choices.

Tell us all oh knowledgeable one. How many have the denied Obama?

Attempting a reasonable interpretation of your garbled English:

There were 68 individual nominees blocked under all previous administrations prior to Obama taking office and 79 (so far) during Obama’s term, for a total of 147.

Source: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/838702-crs-filibuster-report.html

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Hmm
Not ofter do I agee with Rossane Bar
But I do here

Quote

Roseanne Barr may be to the left of even Howard Dean, but she will call out progressive hypocrisy when she sees it.

And the former sitcom queen saw plenty over the weekend as liberal outlets and talking heads praised the Democrats for driving a stake through the heart of filibusters with the "nuclear" option. Naturally, Barr blew the whistle on her fellow progressive via Twitter using over the top language to hammer home her point.


if bush had gotten rid of the filibuster all the fake US leftys would be shitting w rage. #DictatorObama

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

Quote

if bush had gotten rid of the filibuster all the fake US leftys would be shitting w rage. #DictatorObama

Roseanne is showing some impressive ignorance. More than most.

Do you agree with her that Obama was the person who "got rid of the filibuster"?

- Dan G

[kallend 1,623]

So you have no comment on the statement: "There were 68 individual nominees blocked under all previous administrations prior to Obama taking office and 79 (so far) during Obama’s term, for a total of 147."

Just as I suspected.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Not much to comment about really
You just follow the misleading lines of your messiah


http://news.yahoo.com/are-republicans-really-blocking-obama-s-judicial-nominees-at-%E2%80%98unprecedented--levels-001414638.html

Quote

Looking at all of Obama’s nominees across his administration, he has suffered unprecedented levels of obstruction, according to the Wall Street Journal. But when it comes to judicial nominees – the process that sparked Senate Democrats to approve the nuclear option on Thursday – he’s really just suffering from a historically negative trend going back more than two decades.

According to congressional data, former President George W. Bush actually had a lower percentage of circuit court nominees approved during his time in office than Obama.

but then you just suck his story lines up like an obedient sponge

Quote

So, at the end of the day, Obama’s experience may not be quite as unique as he wants the public to believe. But if the nuclear option does reverse the historical trend of obstruction, it’s a move that future presidents, both Republican and Democrat, will likely be thankful for.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Looking at all of Obama’s nominees across his administration, he has suffered unprecedented levels of obstruction, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Yep, that's a paper that is always sympathetic to Obama

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

kallend

Quote

Looking at all of Obama’s nominees across his administration, he has suffered unprecedented levels of obstruction, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Yep, that's a paper that is always sympathetic to Obama

Numbers do not lie
Unless you do not agree with them of course

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,623]

rushmc

***

Quote

Looking at all of Obama’s nominees across his administration, he has suffered unprecedented levels of obstruction, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Yep, that's a paper that is always sympathetic to Obama

Numbers do not lie
Unless you do not agree with them of course

So are you disagreeing with "There were 68 individual nominees blocked under all previous administrations prior to Obama taking office and 79 (so far) during Obama’s term, for a total of 147."

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

kallend

******

Quote

Looking at all of Obama’s nominees across his administration, he has suffered unprecedented levels of obstruction, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Yep, that's a paper that is always sympathetic to Obama

Numbers do not lie
Unless you do not agree with them of course

So are you disagreeing with "There were 68 individual nominees blocked under all previous administrations prior to Obama taking office and 79 (so far) during Obama’s term, for a total of 147."

nope
But I have put forth information that puts the numbers you posted in the proper perspective

and that persepective is Obama is not be treated any worse of differently than Bush was by the Dems

Another manufactured crisis so Obama can pack a court (a court that even states it does not need anymore justices because of it's light work load) with left leaning people who will support his agenda

He can win by public opinion so he is trying to win by court order
Its a liberal thing that has been going on for decades

So I simply point out your implication is less than honest

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

Quote

and that persepective is Obama is not be treated any worse of differently than Bush was by the Dems

If you isolate your numbers to jusicial nominees, then you're right. If you look at all nominees, your position doesn't stand up. Why limit it to judicial nominees? That's cherry picking and you know it.

Quote

Another manufactured crisis so Obama can pack a court (a court that even states it does not need anymore justices because of it's light work load) with left leaning people who will support his agenda

That's how the Constitution is set up. President get to appoint federal judges. It'll work the same way when your guy's in office.

Quote

He can win by public opinion so he is trying to win by court order
Its a liberal thing that has been going on for decades

Again, I'm surprised you have such disdain for Constitutional checks and balances.

- Dan G

[rushmc 18]

What is going on in the courts today is not even close to the Constitutional checks and balances the framers intended

But, this could be said about all three branches in some respects I suppose

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

Quote

What is going on in the courts today is not even close to the Constitutional checks and balances the framers intended

Well, I disagree, but that's okay. We can disagree about that.

Truth is, next time a Republican gets the White House I doubt you are going to complain about him packing the courts to get his way.

- Dan G