If it turns out that this was all a scheme to let the Republicans take credit for repealing it (which like 70% of the American public wants)...I just don't know
But its chances are pretty slim, in any case
Honestly, logrolling is one of the things that really pisses me off about Congress. If something needs to pass, don't attach it to a bunch of other shit.
Peccavi on
0
Options
Clint EastwoodMy baby's in there someplaceShe crawled right inRegistered Userregular
If it turns out that this was all a scheme to let the Republicans take credit for repealing it (which like 70% of the American public wants)...I just don't know
But its chances are pretty slim, in any case
Honestly, logrolling is one of the things that really pisses me off about Congress. If something needs to pass, don't attach it to a bunch of other shit.
I agree with that. Supposedly, a standalone bill might have enough votes to pass, as there are a few Republicans who have said they'd vote for just such a bill.
BaidolI will hold him offEscape while you canRegistered Userregular
edited December 2010
A supermajority of 60 is required to close all discussion and force a straight up-or-down vote, which requires only a simple majority. With the failure of the motion, a filibuster of the bill would likely take place and a vote would never happen.
Republican senators blocked Democratic legislation on Thursday that sought to provide medical care to rescue workers and residents of New York City who became ill as a result of breathing in toxic fumes, dust and smoke from ground zero.
there must be something else to this story...
the "something else" is that republicans are refusing to allow any legislation until the democrats give the ultra rich their tax cuts
12/09/10: Nevar Forgit.
LTM on
0
Options
PiptheFairFrequently not in boats.Registered Userregular
I am confused. Why is a majority vote not sufficient?
Because the Senate (and the Congress as a whole) is governed by a set of rules that can be described as hat-on-ass stupid.
the 2/3rds vote were set in place for very good reasons
the problem is that most of the fathers didn't really think that members of congress would make a job out of it, and figured they would instead actually represent their constituency
A supermajority of 60 is required to close all discussion and force a straight up-or-down vote, which requires only a simple majority. With the failure of the motion, a filibuster of the bill would likely take place and a vote would never happen.
So why don't the Dems call them on it and make them filibuster it for the next 3 months, then?
I am confused. Why is a majority vote not sufficient?
Because the Senate (and the Congress as a whole) is governed by a set of rules that can be described as hat-on-ass stupid.
the 2/3rds vote were set in place for very good reasons
the problem is that most of the fathers didn't really think that members of congress would make a job out of it, and figured they would instead actually represent their constituency
it was an oversight
Fair enough.
Though I guess it is kind of sad that not expecting the guys running the country to make complete assholes of themselves can ever be considered an oversight.
A supermajority of 60 is required to close all discussion and force a straight up-or-down vote, which requires only a simple majority. With the failure of the motion, a filibuster of the bill would likely take place and a vote would never happen.
So why don't the Dems call them on it and make them filibuster it for the next 3 months, then?
A supermajority of 60 is required to close all discussion and force a straight up-or-down vote, which requires only a simple majority. With the failure of the motion, a filibuster of the bill would likely take place and a vote would never happen.
So why don't the Dems call them on it and make them filibuster it for the next 3 months, then?
Because if you're left of center (or, arguably, just...centrist) in America, your options suck.
The Democrats are an ineffectual and feckless lot. It's too bad that my other option is...like...reactionary conservatism.
ieyeasu on
0
Options
PiptheFairFrequently not in boats.Registered Userregular
I am confused. Why is a majority vote not sufficient?
Because the Senate (and the Congress as a whole) is governed by a set of rules that can be described as hat-on-ass stupid.
the 2/3rds vote were set in place for very good reasons
the problem is that most of the fathers didn't really think that members of congress would make a job out of it, and figured they would instead actually represent their constituency
it was an oversight
Fair enough.
Though I guess it is kind of sad that not expecting the guys running the country to make complete assholes of themselves can ever be considered an oversight.
A supermajority of 60 is required to close all discussion and force a straight up-or-down vote, which requires only a simple majority. With the failure of the motion, a filibuster of the bill would likely take place and a vote would never happen.
So why don't the Dems call them on it and make them filibuster it for the next 3 months, then?
Because new Senators and Congressmen will be appointed by then and most of them won't be Democrats. That's why it would never happen.
I'm really glad my only option in this country is between bigoted asshole fuckbags and a gaggle of spineless sopping pussies.
What happened to Senators beating each other with canes on the floor in the middle of a session
I am running for the Senate. My campaign will consist solely of the promise that, if elected, I will beat the shit out of a Republican with a cane at least once a week.
I'm really confused by all the libertarian hate.
It doesn't mean "No taxes, no benefits, no business oversight, or even lowering these policies"
It just a movement to increase the state's power and lower the national's power.
You can be a liberal state libertarian.
I'm really confused by all the libertarian hate.
It doesn't mean "No taxes, no benefits, no business oversight, or even lowering these policies"
It just a movement to increase the state's power and lower the national's power.
You can be a liberal state libertarian.
What you're describing is, at best, a niche subdivision of libertarianism.
I'm really confused by all the libertarian hate.
It doesn't mean "No taxes, no benefits, no business oversight, or even lowering these policies"
It just a movement to increase the state's power and lower the national's power.
You can be a liberal state libertarian.
So 50 little dictatorships would be better than a single moderate government?
I don't think that's really a libertarian position.
CrossBuster on
0
Options
PiptheFairFrequently not in boats.Registered Userregular
If it turns out that this was all a scheme to let the Republicans take credit for repealing it (which like 70% of the American public wants)...I just don't know
But its chances are pretty slim, in any case
Honestly, logrolling is one of the things that really pisses me off about Congress. If something needs to pass, don't attach it to a bunch of other shit.
I agree with that. Supposedly, a standalone bill might have enough votes to pass, as there are a few Republicans who have said they'd vote for just such a bill.
yeah, sure
you can talk about it so that it sounds really distasteful
but the fact of the matter is
1) that is how shit has gotten done in Congress since forever, and it is necessary to the process; if I have a pet project I'm working on I can tack it on to another bill that I have moderate misgivings about. If they want me to do them a favor as a legislator, they can do me a favor.
2) an amendment to regulate military policy towards servicemen and women is 100% appropriate for a military appropriations bill, even if you think coupling non-essential amendments to omnibus legislation is a bad idea.
the people saying they would only support a repeal of DADT if it was its own legislative item rather than a totally appropriate amendment to a spending bill are playing obstructionist. They want to defeat the item introduced by Democrats in order to make Obama look like he is shoving legislation down their throats, then they can vote for it stand-alone and take the moral high ground in the procedure argument
it's 100% cynical and they have no interest in doing what's right
but then again I'm talking about Congressional representatives so that last sentence is a little superfluous
Feminism can mean "demonize dudes"
and Christianity can mean "treat gays like shit"
to lots of people in those groups
but it doesn't reflect the important principles of either.
The libertarians I've spoken to are not wealthy neoconservative economists
Just dudes who would like to not rely on other states for their income and general policies.
Virgil_Leads_You on
0
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
A supermajority of 60 is required to close all discussion and force a straight up-or-down vote, which requires only a simple majority. With the failure of the motion, a filibuster of the bill would likely take place and a vote would never happen.
So why don't the Dems call them on it and make them filibuster it for the next 3 months, then?
because they're pussies
I read psycko's post and thought "because they're pussies"
and then I read your post and thought "this guy is not an idiot"
I'm really confused by all the libertarian hate.
It doesn't mean "No taxes, no benefits, no business oversight, or even lowering these policies"
It just a movement to increase the state's power and lower the national's power.
You can be a liberal state libertarian.
So 50 little dictatorships would be better than a single moderate government?
I don't think that's really a libertarian position.
yes dictatorships
that is exactly what I was trying to detail.
Feminism can mean "demonize dudes"
and Christianity can mean "treat gays like shit"
to lots of people in those groups
but it doesn't reflect the important principles of either.
The libertarians I've spoken to are not wealthy neoconservative economists
Just dudes who would like to not rely on other states for their income and general policies.
I had a serious libertarian boner for a while.
Then I finished school and entered the real world.
A supermajority of 60 is required to close all discussion and force a straight up-or-down vote, which requires only a simple majority. With the failure of the motion, a filibuster of the bill would likely take place and a vote would never happen.
So why don't the Dems call them on it and make them filibuster it for the next 3 months, then?
because they're pussies
I read psycko's post and thought "because they're pussies"
and then I read your post and thought "this guy is not an idiot"
oh look there's 3 of us
mensch-o-matic on
0
Options
Zen VulgarityWhat a lovely day for teaSecret British ThreadRegistered Userregular
edited December 2010
Four of us
Zen Vulgarity on
0
Options
Zonugal(He/Him) The Holiday ArmadilloI'm Santa's representative for all the southern states. And Mexico!Registered Userregular
Republican senators blocked Democratic legislation on Thursday that sought to provide medical care to rescue workers and residents of New York City who became ill as a result of breathing in toxic fumes, dust and smoke from ground zero.
Feminism can mean "demonize dudes"
and Christianity can mean "treat gays like shit"
to lots of people in those groups
but it doesn't reflect the important principles of either.
The libertarians I've spoken to are not wealthy neoconservative economists
Just dudes who would like to not rely on other states for their income and general policies.
"Increasing states' power" is absolutely not a principle of libertarianism.
Posts
screw this shit, let's fucking riot
Honestly, logrolling is one of the things that really pisses me off about Congress. If something needs to pass, don't attach it to a bunch of other shit.
shoot him again
his soul's still dancing
I agree with that. Supposedly, a standalone bill might have enough votes to pass, as there are a few Republicans who have said they'd vote for just such a bill.
Because the Senate (and the Congress as a whole) is governed by a set of rules that can be described as hat-on-ass stupid.
12/09/10: Nevar Forgit.
the 2/3rds vote were set in place for very good reasons
the problem is that most of the fathers didn't really think that members of congress would make a job out of it, and figured they would instead actually represent their constituency
it was an oversight
So why don't the Dems call them on it and make them filibuster it for the next 3 months, then?
Fair enough.
Though I guess it is kind of sad that not expecting the guys running the country to make complete assholes of themselves can ever be considered an oversight.
because they're pussies
Steam
Because if you're left of center (or, arguably, just...centrist) in America, your options suck.
The Democrats are an ineffectual and feckless lot. It's too bad that my other option is...like...reactionary conservatism.
that's why they made terms relatively short
That's what a lame duck session is.
What happened to Senators beating each other with canes on the floor in the middle of a session
I am running for the Senate. My campaign will consist solely of the promise that, if elected, I will beat the shit out of a Republican with a cane at least once a week.
It doesn't mean "No taxes, no benefits, no business oversight, or even lowering these policies"
It just a movement to increase the state's power and lower the national's power.
You can be a liberal state libertarian.
What you're describing is, at best, a niche subdivision of libertarianism.
It means exactly that to a lot of libertarians
So 50 little dictatorships would be better than a single moderate government?
I don't think that's really a libertarian position.
starting at 4:15 actually gives me some hope
that will be crushed eventually
yeah, sure
you can talk about it so that it sounds really distasteful
but the fact of the matter is
1) that is how shit has gotten done in Congress since forever, and it is necessary to the process; if I have a pet project I'm working on I can tack it on to another bill that I have moderate misgivings about. If they want me to do them a favor as a legislator, they can do me a favor.
2) an amendment to regulate military policy towards servicemen and women is 100% appropriate for a military appropriations bill, even if you think coupling non-essential amendments to omnibus legislation is a bad idea.
the people saying they would only support a repeal of DADT if it was its own legislative item rather than a totally appropriate amendment to a spending bill are playing obstructionist. They want to defeat the item introduced by Democrats in order to make Obama look like he is shoving legislation down their throats, then they can vote for it stand-alone and take the moral high ground in the procedure argument
it's 100% cynical and they have no interest in doing what's right
but then again I'm talking about Congressional representatives so that last sentence is a little superfluous
and Christianity can mean "treat gays like shit"
to lots of people in those groups
but it doesn't reflect the important principles of either.
The libertarians I've spoken to are not wealthy neoconservative economists
Just dudes who would like to not rely on other states for their income and general policies.
I read psycko's post and thought "because they're pussies"
and then I read your post and thought "this guy is not an idiot"
yes dictatorships
that is exactly what I was trying to detail.
how did you know?
I had a serious libertarian boner for a while.
Then I finished school and entered the real world.
you don't have a lucky crack pipe?
oh look there's 3 of us
This actually happened a while ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AG0ddWf9TQ
"Increasing states' power" is absolutely not a principle of libertarianism.