Jump to content

Home

Fillibuster-proof majority


Achilles
 Share

Recommended Posts

:eyeraise:

 

Where were you in 1996-2006? Your attempts at sarcastic banter might have more credibility had you been toeing that same line when the GOP was running this country into the ground. As is it, your rhetoric makes you sound like a party hack. Enjoy.

 

QFE.

 

_EW_

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good economy at end of Clinton years: That was because neither the Democrats NOR Republicans had full control of the government. When Bush took office, he had a majority Republican congress that he did not feel the need to veto(even though there were many things he failed to veto that he should have). Whereas Clinton vetoed far more of Republican BS than Bush did. For the current admin, this is still up in the air. We haven't even completed one year(not even a fiscal quarter), and our national budget is way larger than the largest Bush budget. So it seems to be panning out that way again. But I reserve the right to be wrong, and hope that I am.

 

Did I back in 96-06: Yes, however as I was not a member of this board at this time it is impossible for me to prove that. I can certainly point to a number of negative things I have said about the Republicans on the board. And if you notice quite a number of occasions I had chastised GarfieldJL on many of his accusations.

 

Partisan and ineffective: No, I prefer that they not be able to ram partisan policies down our throat. I would rather they be forced to work with the other party to get anything done. If neither party is willing to give, I would rather nothing be done than a whole lot done in one party's favor. Clear enough?

 

you paying attention to what the Republicans say: I believe you listen to what the Dems say the Reps say.

 

Partisanship is evil: Yes, That is what I would say. It makes people willing to ignore the faults in their party's logic.

 

Opportunity to revise: I still stand by it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good economy at end of Clinton years: That was because neither the Democrats NOR Republicans had full control of the government.
Help me understand what this means. You seem to be conflating two topics:

 

1) my discussion with Q as to whether or not both parties are trying to ruin the country

2) partisan control is inherently bad

 

Furthermore your argument contains a couple of premises which I think you're going to have a very difficult time supporting:

 

1) that Clinton couldn't have balanced the budget with a partisan legislature

2) that the balance budget was only possible because there was a Republican majority.

 

So at the risk of repeating myself:

 

So?

 

and

 

I don't buy the argument that both parties are just looking to shotgun a sixer and park the country in a ditch somewhere. Sorry.

 

When Bush took office, he had a majority Republican congress that he did not feel the need to veto(even though there were many things he failed to veto that he should have).
Yes, I am aware that Bush only issued one veto and that this is largely due to his use of signing statements and the fact that he had a legislature that lobbed him softballs for his first 6 years in office.

 

Whereas Clinton vetoed far more of Republican BS than Bush did.
Right, hence my point: it's much easier to get things done when the branches work together. Your argument is that this automatically = bad. My argument is that it depends entirely on the agenda, therefore bad agenda = bad and good agenda = good. Sorry to shatter your false dichotomy, but it had to be done.

 

For the current admin, this is still up in the air. We haven't even completed one year(not even a fiscal quarter), and our national budget is way larger than the largest Bush budget.
Supposing that this was relevant or indicative of anything in any way: which part of the budget are you referring to? Expenditures? Are there any mitigating circumstances that might be applicable? How does this compare to budget revenues?

 

Talking points can be dangerous.

 

Did I back in 96-06: Yes, however as I was not a member of this board at this time it is impossible for me to prove that. I can certainly point to a number of negative things I have said about the Republicans on the board. And if you notice quite a number of occasions I had chastised GarfieldJL on many of his accusations.
Congratulations.

 

Partisan and ineffective: No, I prefer that they not be able to ram partisan policies down our throat. I would rather they be forced to work with the other party to get anything done. If neither party is willing to give, I would rather nothing be done than a whole lot done in one party's favor. Clear enough?
So if you can't have bi-partisan and effective, you'll take bi-partisan and ineffective instead? Got it.

 

Just let me draw your attention once more to a couple of things:

 

The war in Iraq

The war in Afghanistan

pig flu

North Korea

Housing bubble burst

Economic depression

Record unemployment

 

Forgive me if I don't share your "if the other team doesn't want to play nice then we should throw the ball in the river and sulk at each other until 2010-12" perspective on things. As I stated earlier, I don't necessarily care for one party having all the power either. But interestingly, when the Republicans had all the power, they used it to abuse their power ("nuclear option" anyone?). Now that the Democrats have all the power they're talking about things like making sure everyone can go to the doctor when they need health care. Forgive me if I don't see these as equitable evils.

 

Republican conduct has been deplorable. They've consistently demonstrated that they will go to almost any length to make sure that bi-partisanship fails (and if the house majority/minority leaders, the chairman of the RNC, and Rush Limbaugh don't speak for the entire RNC, then please forgive me for generalizing about all the people who helped put them there).

 

So right now, I'm far more interested is seeing business get handled than I am making sure that we tack on months of political posturing so that the GOP can position themselves better for mid-term elections next year :rolleyes:

 

you paying attention to what the Republicans say: I believe you listen to what the Dems say the Reps say.
It's called CSPAN/YouTube/etc.

 

Partisanship is evil: Yes, That is what I would say. It makes people willing to ignore the faults in their party's logic.

 

Opportunity to revise: I still stand by it.

Partisanship is partisanship. It's the agenda that has the capacity for harm or good. Checks and balances are always preferable, however if one party is more committed to the party than the job, then there is a problem.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rather than just sit here and go back and forth, tell me one time when having one party in control of the government did the country good.

 

Clinton doesn't count. Dems didn't control Congress and Presidency.

 

As for the balanced budget, CLINTON DIDN'T BALANCE IT. There I said it. The president does not write the budget. CONGRESS DOES.

 

That said, he did a lot to force congress to balance the budget. But he himself did not do that. It was a bipartisan effort to trim the budget. Which is great. I prefer that. In fact, with a Dem in the White House, the Republicans knew that their spending would be watched more closely than if it were a Republican. Like what happened with Bush.

 

Bush inherited an economy that was bursting from the dot-com meltdown. So if you are going to excuse BO for the current economy, you have to excuse GW for the economy he inherited.

 

re: CSPAN/Youtube/etc Not buying it since you keep misrepresenting Republicans the way you do, while putting the Dems on these high pedestals.

 

Partisanship is essentially a religion. So are you now in favor of religions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, talk about unexpected.

 

Today, Senator Arlen Specter announced that he is now a Democrat. Which shocks the hell out of me, because yesterday I heard him pretty much blow off speculation that he would be changing parties for next year's election (Link).

 

Have you been living in a cave? Since his last contentious run for the seat, it comes as no surprise he'd switch back to his original party affiliation. Especially as the reps are starting to examine who the weak links in their party are. The only thing really surprising, perahps, is that the 2 senators from Maine don't actually make the public switch along with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All other issues aside, I really really hate Al Franken, perhaps he could die and they could put someone less obnoxious in his place.

 

His books are preposterously partisan, but absolutely hilarious.

 

Also, I'm not so sure a filibuster-proof majority would be good for the Obama administration. Even if Obama does finally stabilize the economy is he going to be able to:

 

1) Tackle healthcare reform

2) Improve public schools

3) help students afford college

4) solve our energy shortage

5) produce a legacy

 

without some infighting amongst democrats? It's already clear that Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and the far left democrats are all eyeing different goals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as they prove over the next couple of years that they're as inept at governing and every bit as corrupt as the Republicans, then all of this switching back and forth from one extreme to another might serve a positive purpose.

 

As in voters beginning to consider alternatives to either party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As in voters beginning to consider alternatives to either party.

 

Moving to France? With out "First Past the Post" system of government, there is no way we'll break out of a mainly two-party system. :(

Edited by RoxStar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're probably right, Roxy, but I really hope that you're wrong. As long as those two parties have the country by the balls there isn't much hope for the future here, IMO. We're basically forced to choose between one party whose goal appears to be fascist totalitarianism and another whose goal appears to be socialist totalitarianism. Both are corrupt and rotten to the core, and everything that they touch turns to ****.

 

Not an attractive choice for me, at least.

Just let me draw your attention once more to a couple of things:

 

The war in Iraq

The war in Afghanistan

pig flu

North Korea

Housing bubble burst

Economic depression

Record unemployment

The hell? Which one of these does not fit in with the others?

 

Did I miss something? How is the swine flu the Bush II administration's fault? :confused:

Edited by Q
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rather than just sit here and go back and forth, tell me one time when having one party in control of the government did the country good.
Your argument is that it's inherently wrong. Either stick with that or move on. Don't change the argument to something else and then shift the burden of proof to me.

 

As for the balanced budget, CLINTON DIDN'T BALANCE IT. There I said it. The president does not write the budget. CONGRESS DOES.
And who is responsible for approving it? Clinton's writing it/not writing it would seem to be beside the point.

 

That said, he did a lot to force congress to balance the budget.
Oh, ok :)

 

But he himself did not do that.
Great.

 

Bush inherited an economy that was bursting from the dot-com meltdown. So if you are going to excuse BO for the current economy, you have to excuse GW for the economy he inherited.
Oh, I see where you got your graph now.

 

re: CSPAN/Youtube/etc Not buying it since you keep misrepresenting Republicans the way you do, while putting the Dems on these high pedestals.
:eyeraise:

 

You can buy or not buy whatever you'd like, TD. You might not be aware of this, but I don't really care what you think.

 

Partisanship is essentially a religion. So are you now in favor of religions?
Strawman much? Nice to see that some things don't change.

 

Even if Obama does finally stabilize the economy is he going to be able to

<snip>

Good question.

 

Mid-term elections are only about 18 months away. If they aren't careful, they could lose this before they even have a chance to use it. Of course, as discombobulated as the GOP is right now, who knows.

 

You're probably right, Roxy, but I really hope that you're wrong. As long as those two parties have the country by the balls there isn't much hope for the future here, IMO. We're basically forced to choose between one party whose goal appears to be fascist totalitarianism and another whose goal appears to be socialist totalitarianism. Both are corrupt and rotten to the core, and everything that they touch turns to ****.
Is it cool if I call you "Marvin" from now on?

 

The hell? Which one of these does not fit in with the others?

 

<snip>

 

Did I miss something? How is the swine flu the Bush II administration's fault? :confused:

hehe, that's kinda funny. :D

 

It was a list of things Obama has on his plate (things I posit won't settle for being ignored while Tommycat waits for his bi-partisan utopia). Interesting that you interpretted as a list of things Bush was responsible for :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spectre? He's such a turncoat Dem>Rep>Dem again, I really don't see why you'd welcome him.

 

Taking the money of the Republicans and changing to Democrat mid campaign. Of course considering how he welcomed the bailout and stimulus packages with open arms, and is whining now that "the right chased him away", I'd say the old fossil did it to further his career. He's 79. It was loooking doubtful he'd get in as a Republican.

 

If he bites you like a snake, don't say I (an independent) didn't warn ya. In fact the dems warned the republicans the first time he crossed the aisle.

 

 

 

All other issues aside, I really really hate Al Franken, perhaps he could die and they could put someone less obnoxious in his place.
Can't say I blame you.

 

YES! I'd love ever so much for someone to bash his skull in--if I may make a suggestion: impale him with a cactus first. Jackals like him DO tend to run away.

 

We already have enough jokers in office, we don't need another.

 

Well, we have several other candidates who are less obnoxious:

Jim Carey

Jeff Daniels

Terry Bollea (aka Hulk Hogan)

Jenna Jameson

Eddie Murphy

Chris Rock

Dave Chappelle

Hillary Duff

Natalie Portman

 

Bull****? This is like the 2nd or 3rd recount. It was Franken losing by 500 votes at election night, now he's winning by 200? 700 votes clean out of nowhere. Now THAT is bull****.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spectre? He's such a turncoat Dem>Rep>Dem again, I really don't see why you'd welcome him.
Put down the Xbox controller. The man's name is Arlen Specter.

 

Taking the money of the Republicans and changing to Democrat mid campaign.
No, the campaign ended years ago. He's in the last third of his term.

 

Of course considering how he welcomed the bailout and stimulus packages with open arms, and is whining now that "the right chased him away", I'd say the old fossil did it to further his career. He's 79. It was loooking doubtful he'd get in as a Republican.
Limbaugh or Hannity? Both?

 

YES! I'd love ever so much for someone to bash his skull in--if I may make a suggestion: impale him with a cactus first. Jackals like him DO tend to run away.
Quick! Name one position that Al Franken has taken on any issue (without leaving this page or phoning a friend)?

 

Can't do it? Then wtf are you talking about?

 

Bull****? This is like the 2nd or 3rd recount. It was Franken losing by 500 votes at election night, now he's winning by 200? 700 votes clean out of nowhere. Now THAT is bull****.
Try "first". This was an automatic recount that was required by state law due to the extremely low margin between the two candidates.

 

Votes didn't mysteriously appear "out of nowhere". The purpose of a recount is to establish as precise a count as possible and diminish the margin of error which is inherent to any election. Both sides have presented challenges to some category of ballot or another. These challenges are decided by election officials and/or judges, therefore some ballots aren't "counted" until after a court has ruled on them, which can sometimes cause dramatic swings.

 

In other words, please consider knowing what you're talking about before going off half-cocked. Thanks in advance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • 1 month later...

Well if the Dems do get the filibuster-proof majority, will it really mean they'll use it? I remember when they took the house and senate in 2006, but they didn't take advantage in cutting funding for the war. They didn't push to charge Bush for war crimes, impeachment, or many other goals that they promised.

 

I see the Dems as being better than the Republicans, but they have the problem of being lazy or unable to work towards a common goal. Will they really be able to get things done if they have the 60 margin? I know that they can't when a filibuster blocks them, but will this yield noticeable results?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither do I. Obama would still be president, and the Republican congress and the Democratic president would go back and forth thwarting each other's spending schemes and we'd end up with a budget surplus like we did in the 90s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or, more likely, a much lower deficit. ;)

 

Well the way I see it is that the best you can hope for is not to be stagnant all the time. It seems much better to have more of both party members working together than the significant majority almost perfectly segregated on everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...