kelpdiver 2 #51 January 6, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote House rules don't allow filibusters - so explain again how the threat of filibuster prevented the House from putting the public option in. On the Senate side, they'd have to convince ONE Republican to go along with them, assuming they get the Indies (which they generally do). Ain't passing the 'sniff test', sorry. Not to you, but you have a massive clothespin covering your nose right now. They weren't getting that one vote with the public option, nor were they getting weasel Lieberman's vote. He may have been more a pain in the ass than Snowe. And several other Democrats would have bailed on it too, fearing a Socialist tag on their next election. I don't object to a bill this significant requiring a super majority. But don't pretend that the Democrats had free rein to pass whatever they wanted. It is amazing what happens when you fear the consequences of going against what the public that elected you actually wants. Or are you one of those that thinks that you know what is better for people than what they want? Since you were confused, I changed the bolding to help you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #52 January 6, 2011 >Obama is the Messiah, te others are just demigods. If you say so! You are one of the most vocal Obama-worshipers on here, so I guess you've got some authority on the topic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #53 January 6, 2011 Quote Again - please. Passing the bill doesn't require a supermajority. please, yourself. 60 votes is a supermajority. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #54 January 6, 2011 Quote >Obama is the Messiah, te others are just demigods. If you say so! You are one of the most vocal Obama-worshipers on here, so I guess you've got some authority on the topic. I worship Obama just as much as you and quade and skyrider worship Christ.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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #55 January 6, 2011 QuoteAgain - please. Passing the bill doesn't require a supermajority. The Dems had a sufficient majority in the House to pass it without a single Rep vote (in fact, Cao's vote wasn't even needed), and they *did* pass it in the Senate without a single Rep vote. Unfortunately, he's talking about the Senate, which currently (and has for quite some time) required -60- votes to ensure the issue is brought to the floor to vote on to begin with. The Senate simply can't vote and pass legislation that doesn't come to the floor and THAT does de facto require -60- votes. This is because of the entire wrongheaded way the filibuster rules in the Senate work. There is currently a motion in the Senate to change that. I fully support it.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #56 January 6, 2011 QuoteQuote Again - please. Passing the bill doesn't require a supermajority. please, yourself. 60 votes is a supermajority. Cloture vote != passage vote.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #57 January 6, 2011 QuoteQuoteAgain - please. Passing the bill doesn't require a supermajority. The Dems had a sufficient majority in the House to pass it without a single Rep vote (in fact, Cao's vote wasn't even needed), and they *did* pass it in the Senate without a single Rep vote. Unfortunately, he's talking about the Senate, which currently (and has for quite some time) required -60- votes to ensure the issue is brought to the floor to vote on to begin with. The Senate webpage doesn't seem to agree with you. QuoteThe chairman, or some other member of the committee designated for that purpose, reports bills to the Senate, and when reported they are placed on the Senate Calendar of Business, unless unanimous consent is given for immediate consideration. and QuoteMost measures are passed either on the call of the Calendar or by unanimous consent procedure. The more significant and controversial matters are considered, when possible, under unanimous consent agreements limiting debate and controlling time on the measure, amendments thereto, and debatable motions relating to it. This is done because otherwise debate is unlimited. Measures may be brought up on motion by a simple majority vote if they have been on the Calendar one legislative day. They may have to invoke cloture to limit debate - not to get it on the floor in the first place. QuoteThe Senate simply can't vote and pass legislation that doesn't come to the floor and THAT does de facto require -60- votes. This is because of the entire wrongheaded way the filibuster rules in the Senate work. Not so - see above. QuoteThere is currently a motion in the Senate to change that. I fully support it. To get rid of the filibuster? Remember not to complain about it when it's used against the Dems, however.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
petejones45 0 #58 January 6, 2011 QuoteThe move comes less than a year after Anthem Blue Cross tried and failed to raise rates as much as 39%. under the new law your HMO can not rise more than 10%Look out for the freefly team, Smelly Peppers. Once we get a couple years more experience we will be a force to be reckoned with in the near future! BLUES! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #59 January 6, 2011 QuoteTo get rid of the filibuster? Remember not to complain about it when it's used against the Dems, however. Not get rid of a real filibuster, but to get rid of this asinine phony filibuster crap that has been going on for a few years now. Currently, all somebody has to do is pass a note up saying they intend to filibuster and essentially everything grinds to a halt without any real consequence to the person who started it. Under the proposed rule, if a Senator wants to filibuster, they'll be forced back into actually doing it and with CSpan watching them f-up the system. They're calling it something to the effect of the "Mr. Smith" filibuster rule as in the old Jimmy Stewart movie. Stand up and talk all you want, but FFS actually DO it rather than be able to bring everything to a halt just by threatening it. More here; http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/01/05/senate.filibuster.changes/index.htmlquade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #60 January 6, 2011 QuoteQuoteTo get rid of the filibuster? Remember not to complain about it when it's used against the Dems, however. Not get rid of a real filibuster, but to get rid of this asinine phony filibuster crap that has been going on for a few years now. Currently, all somebody has to do is pass a note up saying they intend to filibuster and essentially everything grinds to a halt without any real consequence to the person who started it. Under the proposed rule, if a Senator wants to filibuster, they'll be forced back into actually doing it and with CSpan watching them f-up the system. They're calling it something to the effect of the "Mr. Smith" filibuster rule as in the old Jimmy Stewart movie. Stand up and talk all you want, but FFS actually DO it rather than be able to bring everything to a halt just by threatening it. Oooh - you typed "asinine" I like that word.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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #61 January 7, 2011 Interesting - if they match that up with getting rid of the 'secret holds', I could go for that.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #62 January 7, 2011 QuoteQuoteTo get rid of the filibuster? Remember not to complain about it when it's used against the Dems, however. Not get rid of a real filibuster, but to get rid of this asinine phony filibuster crap that has been going on for a few years now. Currently, all somebody has to do is pass a note up saying they intend to filibuster and essentially everything grinds to a halt without any real consequence to the person who started it. Under the proposed rule, if a Senator wants to filibuster, they'll be forced back into actually doing it and with CSpan watching them f-up the system. They're calling it something to the effect of the "Mr. Smith" filibuster rule as in the old Jimmy Stewart movie. Stand up and talk all you want, but FFS actually DO it rather than be able to bring everything to a halt just by threatening it. More here; http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/01/05/senate.filibuster.changes/index.html I support them having to do it too That is not what I understand dirty Harry to be suggesing however but I have not had much time lately If you got a link to the proposal please post it I will look too Thanks"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #63 January 7, 2011 QuoteQuoteTo get rid of the filibuster? Remember not to complain about it when it's used against the Dems, however. Not get rid of a real filibuster, but to get rid of this asinine phony filibuster crap that has been going on for a few years now. Currently, all somebody has to do is pass a note up saying they intend to filibuster and essentially everything grinds to a halt without any real consequence to the person who started it. Under the proposed rule, if a Senator wants to filibuster, they'll be forced back into actually doing it and with CSpan watching them f-up the system. They're calling it something to the effect of the "Mr. Smith" filibuster rule as in the old Jimmy Stewart movie. Stand up and talk all you want, but FFS actually DO it rather than be able to bring everything to a halt just by threatening it. More here; http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/01/05/senate.filibuster.changes/index.html opps see the link I will look"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #64 January 7, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote Again - please. Passing the bill doesn't require a supermajority. please, yourself. 60 votes is a supermajority. Cloture vote != passage vote. the distinction is rather pointless at this point. If you can't even get to a vote, you can't pass it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #65 January 7, 2011 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122799603 http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-01-20-massachusetts-upset-democrats_N.htm sucks to be you"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #66 January 7, 2011 Quotethe distinction is rather pointless at this point. If you can't even get to a vote, you can't pass it. 12/23/2009: Cloture invoked in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 60 - 39. Record Vote Number: 395. (Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea) 12/24/2009: Passed Senate with an amendment and an amendment to the Title by Yea-Nay Vote. 60 - 39. (Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea) 12/24/2009: Measure amended in Senate by unanimous consent after passage by Unanimous Consent. 3/21/2010 10:48pm: On motion that the House agree to the Senate amendments Agreed to by recorded vote: 219 - 212 (Roll no. 165). (text as House agrees to Senate amendments: CR H1920-2152) 3/21/2010 10:48pm: Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection. Damn, they sure couldn't get it to a vote, could they? And damn that weasel Lieberman, voting against the bill that way!!Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
doughboyshred 0 #67 January 7, 2011 completely irrelevant. That was before the bill was brought to the senate. Doesn't change the fact that once the senate had the bill, the democrats didn't have the votes. Also, the democrats had 58 votes before that election. Independents are not Democrats. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #68 January 7, 2011 Quotecompletely irrelevant. That was before the bill was brought to the senate. Doesn't change the fact that once the senate had the bill, the democrats didn't have the votes. Also, the democrats had 58 votes before that election. Independents are not Democrats. Both Indies voted Yea on the closure and Yea on passing the bill.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #69 January 7, 2011 QuoteQuotethe distinction is rather pointless at this point. If you can't even get to a vote, you can't pass it. 12/23/2009: Cloture invoked in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 60 - 39. Record Vote Number: 395. (Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea) 12/24/2009: Passed Senate with an amendment and an amendment to the Title by Yea-Nay Vote. 60 - 39. (Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea) 12/24/2009: Measure amended in Senate by unanimous consent after passage by Unanimous Consent. 3/21/2010 10:48pm: On motion that the House agree to the Senate amendments Agreed to by recorded vote: 219 - 212 (Roll no. 165). (text as House agrees to Senate amendments: CR H1920-2152) 3/21/2010 10:48pm: Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection. Damn, they sure couldn't get it to a vote, could they? And damn that weasel Lieberman, voting against the bill that way!! do you even know what point you're trying to argue? It took *60* votes to get it to a vote - the same supermajority you are trying to claim isn't necessary to pass a bill. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #70 January 7, 2011 Quotedo you even know what point you're trying to argue? It took *60* votes to get it to a vote - the same supermajority you are trying to claim isn't necessary to pass a bill. The last time I looked, 60 is greater than the simple majority of 51 that's required to pass a bill. The Dems had the votes to invoke cloture. If the bill was truly as good and enjoyed the public support the Dems claimed, they should have said 'filibuster and be damned', used the filibuster to hammer the Reps even more than they were ALREADY doing and let public pressure do the rest.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
