funjumper101 15 #1 April 18, 2013 Can any of the right wing conservatards show me where in the US Constitution it specifies that it takes 60 votes to pass a bill through the Senate? You can't. This is happening due to the gross abuse of the filibuster by the Rescumlicans. The corporate owned media pitched a bitch in 2005 when Democratic Senators filibustered Rescumlican bills in 2005. The media pressure was relentless. How is it that this gross abuse of Senate rules is so completely ignored? Hows about we go back to governing by the methodology written into the Constitution? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #2 April 18, 2013 QuoteCan any of the right wing conservatards show me where in the US Constitution it specifies that it takes 60 votes to pass a bill through the Senate? You can't. This is happening due to the gross abuse of the filibuster by the Rescumlicans. The corporate owned media pitched a bitch in 2005 when Democratic Senators filibustered Rescumlican bills in 2005. The media pressure was relentless. How is it that this gross abuse of Senate rules is so completely ignored? Hows about we go back to governing by the methodology written into the Constitution? Amazon, is that you?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
rehmwa 2 #3 April 18, 2013 QuoteAmazon, is that you? He WISHES. It's a bit sad really. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #4 April 18, 2013 Filibusters in the Senate have existed since the early 19th Century. The US Supreme Court impliedly sustained the practice in 1892 in US v. Ballin. Through history, each party has used it to its advantage. All depends on whose ox gets gored, I suppose. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #5 April 18, 2013 QuoteCan any of the right wing conservatards show me where in the US Constitution it specifies that it takes 60 votes to pass a bill through the Senate? You can't. This is happening due to the gross abuse of the filibuster by the Rescumlicans. The corporate owned media pitched a bitch in 2005 when Democratic Senators filibustered Rescumlican bills in 2005. The media pressure was relentless. How is it that this gross abuse of Senate rules is so completely ignored? Hows about we go back to governing by the methodology written into the Constitution? Do you know what Cloture is? You are correct, in a way, that a simple majority is all that is needed to pass a bill. It is Cloture that takes a 3/5 majority. Get your rant right, or you just end up looking as ridiculous as the rant you are ranting. Or is that raving? Hmmm.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
toolbox 0 #6 April 18, 2013 I have to say I'm impressed with your unbiased objectivity,even when you disagree with an expressed opinion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #7 April 18, 2013 QuoteQuoteCan any of the right wing conservatards show me where in the US Constitution it specifies that it takes 60 votes to pass a bill through the Senate? You can't. This is happening due to the gross abuse of the filibuster by the Rescumlicans. The corporate owned media pitched a bitch in 2005 when Democratic Senators filibustered Rescumlican bills in 2005. The media pressure was relentless. How is it that this gross abuse of Senate rules is so completely ignored? Hows about we go back to governing by the methodology written into the Constitution? Do you know what Cloture is? You are correct, in a way, that a simple majority is all that is needed to pass a bill. It is Cloture that takes a 3/5 majority. Get your rant right, or you just end up looking as ridiculous as the rant you are ranting. Or is that raving? Hmmm. His rants get raves.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #8 April 18, 2013 QuoteFilibusters in the Senate have existed since the early 19th Century. The US Supreme Court impliedly sustained the practice in 1892 in US v. Ballin. Through history, each party has used it to its advantage. All depends on whose ox gets gored, I suppose. They have, however, become MUCH more common in the last couple of decades. http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #9 April 18, 2013 QuoteCan any of the right wing conservatards show me where in the US Constitution it specifies that it takes 60 votes to pass a bill through the Senate? Can any of the left wing libertards tell me when we had a constitutional convention which decided to replace the "shall not be infringed" part of the second amendment? You can't. Quote How is it that this gross abuse of Senate rules is so completely ignored? I'm not ignoring it. I'm so happy that I'll probably donate some money to Republicans in other states that will be facing winnable election contests in 2014; perhaps directly, perhaps indirectly via the NRA Political Victory Fund. Quote Hows about we go back to governing by the methodology written into the Constitution? If Democrats would respect the Constitution we wouldn't need to rely on such things (Republicans are just as bad; although right now I detest them less because they're not trying to interfere with my hobbies). Although they won't do any good I'm not opposed to background checks per-se. Come back with a bill that's only about background checks and not increased profits for the National Alliance of Stocking Gun Dealers (the guys behind the GCA '68 mail order ban) and you'll get less objection. That would mean private citizens making their own web inquiries before each sale and either keeping the paper on file (like a form 4473) for a period of years like their tax returns or opting for an escrowed electronic copy instead of paying some one else a lot to do that. Don't include a provision making it illegal to swap guns (temporarily) with friends when shooting on government land (trap, steel plates, whatever) but not hunting or trapping. As long as "background check" bills require all sales to go through a licensed dealer I'll object strenuously (as in help pay lobbyists to lean on congress people, not just complain on-line). Especially when those dealers are not required to perform transfers (used guns from private parties don't get the same markup as consignment sales, and used guns of all sorts cut into new gun sales) and there's no limit for the fee they'll charge. One dealer tried to hold an inter-state transfer of mine hostage until I coughed up 10% of the invoice price. Here in California where we already require all transfers to go through dealers they often illegally (state law requires them to participate and charge no more than $10 on top of the Dealer Record Of Sale fees) refuse to participate in private transfers because they don't like the competition from used guns. Some dealers refuse without becoming criminals by dragging their feet long enough (over an hour) that customers are likely to go elsewhere. Some are on the wrong side of the duck hunting / sport utility schism and refuse to perform legal transfers of guns they don't like. Sometimes this happens 2-3 times in a row. Some just charge $75 (more than a lot of WW2 rifles were worth the last time I checked which would be doubling the price) per transfer on top of the state fees. Come back with a bill that's just about background checks and maybe consider COMPROMISE Quote An agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions instead of insisting on gun owners' gradual surrender. I'd support a background check bill which also included national firearms pre-emption of more onerous local laws and/or interstate transfers with no licensed dealers involved as long as people passed their instant check. Lots more other gun owners would. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #10 April 18, 2013 Back in the day, filibusters were rare. They were so disruptive that while they were going on everything ground to a halt. In the 1970's, Robert Byrd introduced a two-track system that let filibustered items be shelved while the Senate did other things. So while it used to be that consensus and compromise had to be reached or the Senate would grind to a halt, since the 70s there has beem a large amount of the party-in-charge ramming stuff down the throats of the minority party. (Nobody is worse at ramming down the throat and not allowing minority proposals than Harry Reid.). Thus, filibuster is the only thing the minority party has. Build a consensus and you don't have a filibuster. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #11 April 18, 2013 The Senate is working as intended live with it"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
Opie 0 #12 April 19, 2013 QuoteThe Senate is working as intended live with it Will you be content with being quoted on this in the future? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #13 April 19, 2013 QuoteQuoteThe Senate is working as intended live with it Will you be content with being quoted on this in the future?already have been. Remember obamacare."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
