Pig F**king Traitors: the GOP

[136 or 142]

Welcome to the politics section of bellgab. You must be new here.

That is actually rather droll.  Of course, it just provides more evidence that your far right wing rantings are really just trolling.

[VtaGeezer]

House and Senate Bills don't have to be reconciled?  The President doesn't have to sign them?  The courts don't determine their Constitutionality when litigated?  Pretty sure those are in there too, you may want to check again

As far as the House and Senate rules, they aren't exactly an 'extra-Constitutional procedural gauntlet'.  Article I, Section 5, 2nd paragraph (quote) "Each House may determine the Rules of it's Proceedings..." (end quote).  I get that it's all claimed to be 'vague' and 'confusing', but it really isn't.

This 'extra-Constitutional procedural gauntlet', as you call it, is meant to ensure there isn't a headlong rush to pass unwise bills.  They ensure each lawmaker has a chance to be heard, and register his objections.  Again, for the sake of developing a certain level of consensus - and getting the best bill possible.

"...straight out of the Constitution" were your words, not mine, Captain America. The Framers never envisioned procedural "rules" like the filibuster, unanimous consent, the Hastert rule, and the power of committees and their chairmen.

[albrecht]

"...straight out of the Constitution" were your words, not mine, Captain America. The Framers never envisioned procedural "rules" like the filibuster, unanimous consent, the Hastert rule, and the power of committees and their chairmen.

Sure they did. They were aware of parliamentary procedure and created it and used it. They were aware of parlimentary procedure in the British system and created a system for our Congress (later Robert's Rules of Order was written based upon those rules.) As far as politics goes it was a lot nastier back in the "good old days" than it is now. You had outright secessionist bills in State legislatures, open rebellions, fights between Congress and the Presidents, members attacking each other on the House floor, duels, real muck-raking (and outright liar) press, and later even a Civil War, etc.

[VtaGeezer]

Sure they did. They were aware of parliamentary procedure and created it and used it.

Not to the extremes to which the procedural rules have evolved.  The filibuster is quite different and very rare in the British Parliament. It was exceptionally rare in Washington until Obama was elected. Now the mere threat of a filibuster by one Senator requires a cloture tally (not even a formal vote) to just schedule a bill for vote. The Senate's Unanimous Consent Rule has largely replaced formal up & down votes on all but the most important bills, and allows one senator to block any routine bill indefinitely. The new Hastert Rule, not even a formal procedure, allows the Speaker to block a bill from a House vote unless the majority party supports it; virtually killing real bipartisan actions. The list goes on. 

[PB the Deplorable]

"...straight out of the Constitution" were your words, not mine, Captain America. The Framers never envisioned procedural "rules" like the filibuster, unanimous consent, the Hastert rule, and the power of committees and their chairmen.

My exact words were "Most of that is straight out of the Constitution."  And *most* of the process I described is (I notice you snipped off the word 'most' for some reason). 

In fact you are the one who said only two steps in the process I described are in the Constitution, and I corrected you by pointing out at least 3 of the others are as well.

I addressed the Constitutionality of House and Senate Rules in Replies #179 and #207 of this thread, and didn't think it needed to be mentioned a third time so soon


I'm glad you enjoy my posts and respond to them.  I hope you are learning a lot.  But if you are going to quote me, please be accurate

[PB the Deplorable]

Not to the extremes to which the procedural rules have evolved.  The filibuster is quite different and very rare in the British Parliament. It was exceptionally rare in Washington until Obama was elected. Now the mere threat of a filibuster by one Senator requires a cloture tally (not even a formal vote) to just schedule a bill for vote. The Senate's Unanimous Consent Rule has largely replaced formal up & down votes on all but the most important bills, and allows one senator to block any routine bill indefinitely. The new Hastert Rule, not even a formal procedure, allows the Speaker to block a bill from a House vote unless the majority party supports it; virtually killing real bipartisan actions. The list goes on.

In a Parliamentary system, the Chief Executive (Prime Minister) is the head of the party that controls Parliament.  That is very different from our system of separation of powers, where the Chief Executive (President) is elected independent from the Congress, is not part of Congress, and is often from a different party than the one that controls Congress.  The 2 systems aren't really comparable.  Separation of powers in our system is much more vigorous, and is intended to be.

It is true that there are more filibusters in modern times, and that the rule has been used increasingly over the years.  It may even be true that this trend is unfortunate and needs to be addressed.  But it wasn't 'exceptionally rare' before Obama was elected.  It's just that you object to Republicans using the filibuster, and don't mind when the D's use it.

[VtaGeezer]

But it wasn't 'exceptionally rare' before Obama was elected. 

Yes it was.

[PB the Deplorable]

Yes it was.

I don't think 30-40 per session is 'exceptionally rare'?  (The period just before Obama)

I think my original comment was more correct:  "It is true that there are more filibusters in modern times, and that the rule has been used increasingly over the years..."


Here are a few items for your consideration:

a)  Obama is hell bent on destroying as much as he can as fast as he can - intentionally or otherwise - and there is much to be objected to.

b)  The way Harry Reid ran the Senate as Majority Leader during the Obama years left the R's with less opportunities to be heard and to influence legislation in other ways.

c)  Not all filibusters are from Senators in the minority party

[albrecht]

a)  Obama is hell bent on destroying as much as he can as fast as he can - intentionally or otherwise - and there is much to be objected to.

I think this is the real take-away from the graph and all the stories about the evil, obstructionists the press write about. It is not a problem of "the system", the country, the Congress, the Constitution, or the American people- but a problem that is Obama; as he considers all the above either the enemy or something that needs to be "fundamentally changed."

When you have a President with clear animosity towards the country, the institutions, the law, and the people one can expect push-back or at least delay and obstruction. Frankly Congress etc is not going far enough in pushing back and use every maneuver- parliamentarian, funding, etc- at their disposal to block, or at least try to contain, Obama's policies and history (probably written in Mandarin) will treat the acquiescence to Obama as the key point in the country's decline or end.

[136 or 142]

I'm glad you enjoy my posts and respond to them.  I hope you are learning a lot. 

People who read what you write lose brain cells in the process.

[pate]

Topic?  What Topic?  Grate arugu ment!

Neil Diamond - Solitary Man live 1971

Cheers, seriously, from one drunk to another! 

CHEERS!

[pate]

....Not to the extremes to which the procedural rules have evolved.  The filibuster is quite different and very rare in the British Parliament. It was exceptionally rare in Washington until Obama was elected....

Not to call you out, but will you at least give American precedents?  Apologies for where I am wrong, but I seek to be educated in this whole "political reality" did I speel that right> or left?  Dusd right or left have a meaning until the French Revolution?  I digress...

[pate]

Yes it was.

Nice graph, care to share the numbers that arrived at that conclusion? 

Is that graph a conclusion, or just a picture?  I have my own version of that picture, and devil may care if I photo-edit a graph...

Where'd you get that anyway?  Those Nazis at Fox?

I submit what I saw that you said that you saw:

[attachimg=1]

Care to add in the data, you know the "19.5" that you arrived at this graph from?

I am happy to submit graphs as well, and I reckon you HOLY ROLLER DEMOCRATS won't like it... we'll start with number of government employees with private e-mail servers in the basement as the x-axis...

[pate]

NITwit:

Tool - Hooker with a penis

Wat wuz thiz hole 'bout?

In eee who...

[pate]

... British Parliament... it; virtually killing real bipartisan actions. The list goes on.

Last time I checked "British Parliament" had zero O meaning in American matters...

edit:

[attachimg=1]

hehe, I'll let you take first swing...

[pate]

[attachimg=1]

[VtaGeezer]

Pate: The graph is labeled. PB inferred that the convoluted procedural rules were defined in the Constitution and that the Founders based them on contemporary parliamentary rules; e.g. Parliament. Not so. Other bodies that permit filibusters require actual the speech from the floor remain on the topic; not the reading of weather reports or Dr. Seuss.  Hope this answers you, but it would help if the questions were coherent.

[FightTheFuture]

Pretty interesting article. Although, maybe not so much for the obama apologists in here.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/iranian-dissidents-criticize-obamas-nuclear-diplomacy/

[VtaGeezer]

Pretty interesting article. Although, maybe not so much for the obama apologists in here.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/iranian-dissidents-criticize-obamas-nuclear-diplomacy/

The article is a rehash the same old rightwing points about Obama not supporting the '09 "uprising" and dealing with bad actors like Khamenei.  Nothing new or mind-changing.  A war with Iran will not be a walk in the park.  We should do everything we can to avoid it.

[FightTheFuture]

The article is a rehash the same old rightwing points about Obama not supporting the '09 "uprising" and dealing with bad actors like Khamenei.  Nothing new or mind-changing.  A war with Iran will not be a walk in the park.  We should do everything we can to avoid it.

LOL of course it is

[pate]

my son WILL be a genius!

[136 or 142]

my son WILL be a genius!

So, Pate, are you ever NOT drunk?

[pate]

Pate: The graph is labeled. PB inferred that the convoluted procedural rules were defined in the Constitution and that the Founders based them on contemporary parliamentary rules; e.g. Parliament. Not so. Other bodies that permit filibusters require actual the speech from the floor remain on the topic; not the reading of weather reports or Dr. Seuss.  Hope this answers you, but it would help if the questions were coherent.

Which graph?   I was actually confused by the thread title to waterboarding?  Is some drift involved?  & why come I listen to any combination of letters that you type?  VTAgeezer?  Why come this is a serious thread?

Hulk want to know?

[NowhereInTime]

Pretty interesting article. Although, maybe not so much for the obama apologists in here.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/iranian-dissidents-criticize-obamas-nuclear-diplomacy/

Hmmm... this seems familiar.  Where have I seen a very tiny yet vocal minority criticize the President's every step before?

http://m.vidalatinasd.com/news/2014/dec/18/cuban-exiles-hit-out-against-obama/

Kidding aside, those political prisoners have a better chance at freedom with an engaged Iran than an isolated one. 

[NowhereInTime]

my son WILL be a genius!

How do you propose having a son, or for that matter a daughter, when you chronically spill your seed in dunken fits of self flagellating folly?

Reign it in, man.  Reign it in.

[pate]

Yes! This:

How do you propose having a son, or for that matter a daughter, when you chronically spill your seed in dunken fits of self flagellating folly?

Reign it in, man.  Reign it in.

& this:

Hmmm... this seems familiar.  Where have I seen a very tiny yet vocal minority criticize the President's every step before?

http://m.vidalatinasd.com/news/2014/dec/18/cuban-exiles-hit-out-against-obama/




de, those political prisoners have a better chance at freedom with an engaged Iran than an isolated one.

waterboard?

You have no freedom, even in your thread?  Shall I reign it in (context):

Pig F**king Traitors: the GOP?

What were tou talking about.?  & Where did you expect rational?  Logic?  Honey*&ny if you want to suck my coq, 'tis 'tween u & me*

Where was I DEMOCRAP worshipper? (DEMOCRAP=logic)

[NowhereInTime]

Yes! This:

& this:


waterboard?

You have no freedom, even in your thread?  Shall I reign it in (context):

Pig F**king Traitors: the GOP?

What were tou talking about.?  & Where did you expect rational?  Logic?  Honey*&ny if you want to suck my coq, 'tis 'tween u & me*

Where was I DEMOCRAP worshipper? (DEMOCRAP=logic)

Oh, right, well, it all makes sense now...

[pate]

Seriously,

NITwit, if you really want to see/suck my coq you could PM me...

-pate

[pate]

What a schlong thread you have there NITwit!  Your cyberself has any relation to your real self?  Which poke you take;  mouth or butt?  I am happy to give...

[pate]

Ah!

I'm sorry, I really came into this thread to celebrate:

Saint NITwit's Day!@

I 'pologizem!

No really!@ 

SAINT NITwit!

I cheers ya!@

Cheers? 

DOAN buleirgf nayack"?

CHEERS!@