And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby Indaswamp » Fri Nov 22, 2013 11:15 am

We are screwed. Now we have the tyranny of the majority un-checked. The title of this article says it all:
Democracy Returns to the Senate
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56126
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana


Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby blackduckdog2 » Fri Nov 22, 2013 11:52 am

assateague wrote:
Me and Black Betty wrote:Are you really going to use the Constitution as a defense? Seems a bit ironic, even hypocritical. While we are on the topic of what is in the Constitution and what is not, maybe you could point me to some text that shows where the Federal government has the authority to mandate health insurance. While you are at, try to find something defining the obligation to provide healthcare to those who cannot afford/obtain it via Medicare/cade.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk



x2

I see……You get to yammer all day long about how the constitution should be strictly interpreted, except when it doesn't suit your needs………THEN we can get all loosey-goosey with the interpretations, right? Seems a little hypocritical to me
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6286
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby SpinnerMan » Fri Nov 22, 2013 12:01 pm

blackduckdog2 wrote:
assateague wrote:
Me and Black Betty wrote:Are you really going to use the Constitution as a defense? Seems a bit ironic, even hypocritical. While we are on the topic of what is in the Constitution and what is not, maybe you could point me to some text that shows where the Federal government has the authority to mandate health insurance. While you are at, try to find something defining the obligation to provide healthcare to those who cannot afford/obtain it via Medicare/cade.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk



x2

I see……You get to yammer all day long about how the constitution should be strictly interpreted, except when it doesn't suit your needs………THEN we can get all loosey-goosey with the interpretations, right? Seems a little hypocritical to me

Is there ANYTHING in your opinion that the Constitution prohibits the Federal government from doing in this regard?

Can the federal government mandate that you get colonoscopies or pay a tax penalty?

Can the federal government mandate that you have a $0 deductible health care policy that covers breast augmentation?

Not saying they should. Asking if it would run afoul of the 9th and/or 10th amendment? Is there anything that you would say, sorry, good or bad law it doesn't matter, it violates the 9th and/or 10th amendment?

Or do you believe that if Congress passes it and the President signs it, well you are just SOL and pay your fine or go to jail :hammer:
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15808
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby blackduckdog2 » Fri Nov 22, 2013 12:06 pm

vincentpa wrote: The liberals will rue the day they ended this rule.


No we won't………there is no question that Republicans would have pulled this or something similar the moment they got the chance. Dems stole a march is all. If you think for a second with right wing vitriol at all time highs that if the Republicans gained a majority in the Senate and had the White House as well, that they wouldn't have immediately suspended the filibuster rules (just like they did back in, what was it? 05?) simply because Harry Reid had foregone HIS shot at the nuclear option, well, I think you're dreaming.
And yeah, I agree that government was meant to run somewhat deliberately, but when the filibuster gets used so much that the engine of government grinds to a near stop, that's a problem. Appointing federal judges is hardly done on a whim; the one and only reason they're being filibustered is so that Obama won't be able to make his choices. It's purely political, and the appointments should be made by the party in the White House, just like they always used to be

Yes it's Mother Jones, but facts is facts:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/11/charts-explain-why-democrats-went-nuclear-filibuster
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6286
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby blackduckdog2 » Fri Nov 22, 2013 12:11 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:
assateague wrote:
Me and Black Betty wrote:Are you really going to use the Constitution as a defense? Seems a bit ironic, even hypocritical. While we are on the topic of what is in the Constitution and what is not, maybe you could point me to some text that shows where the Federal government has the authority to mandate health insurance. While you are at, try to find something defining the obligation to provide healthcare to those who cannot afford/obtain it via Medicare/cade.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk



x2

I see……You get to yammer all day long about how the constitution should be strictly interpreted, except when it doesn't suit your needs………THEN we can get all loosey-goosey with the interpretations, right? Seems a little hypocritical to me

Is there ANYTHING in your opinion that the Constitution prohibits the Federal government from doing in this regard?

Can the federal government mandate that you get colonoscopies or pay a tax penalty?

Can the federal government mandate that you have a $0 deductible health care policy that covers breast augmentation?

Not saying they should. Asking if it would run afoul of the 9th and/or 10th amendment? Is there anything that you would say, sorry, good or bad law it doesn't matter, it violates the 9th and/or 10th amendment?

Or do you believe that if Congress passes it and the President signs it, well you are just SOL and pay your fine or go to jail :hammer:

You know I'm a devoted believer in civil disobedience to manifest a passionate disagreement with what seems to you a bad law. I've said so lots of times. By all means, take a stand, but be willing to pay the price. That's how law evolves
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6286
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby SpinnerMan » Fri Nov 22, 2013 12:17 pm

blackduckdog2 wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:
assateague wrote:
Me and Black Betty wrote:Are you really going to use the Constitution as a defense? Seems a bit ironic, even hypocritical. While we are on the topic of what is in the Constitution and what is not, maybe you could point me to some text that shows where the Federal government has the authority to mandate health insurance. While you are at, try to find something defining the obligation to provide healthcare to those who cannot afford/obtain it via Medicare/cade.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk



x2

I see……You get to yammer all day long about how the constitution should be strictly interpreted, except when it doesn't suit your needs………THEN we can get all loosey-goosey with the interpretations, right? Seems a little hypocritical to me

Is there ANYTHING in your opinion that the Constitution prohibits the Federal government from doing in this regard?

Can the federal government mandate that you get colonoscopies or pay a tax penalty?

Can the federal government mandate that you have a $0 deductible health care policy that covers breast augmentation?

Not saying they should. Asking if it would run afoul of the 9th and/or 10th amendment? Is there anything that you would say, sorry, good or bad law it doesn't matter, it violates the 9th and/or 10th amendment?

Or do you believe that if Congress passes it and the President signs it, well you are just SOL and pay your fine or go to jail :hammer:

You know I'm a devoted believer in civil disobedience to manifest a passionate disagreement with what seems to you a bad law. I've said so lots of times. By all means, take a stand, but be willing to pay the price. That's how law evolves

So the answer is that you do not believe the Constitution limits Congress in this regard. That's what I figured. Which said another way is that the law does not matter. It is a stereotypical liberal position.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15808
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby blackduckdog2 » Fri Nov 22, 2013 12:24 pm

I believe you are the only conservative on this forum who would interpret a vigorous support of civil disobedience to mean "the law doesn't matter" Well, at least you're not in lock-step; gotta give you that
Last edited by blackduckdog2 on Fri Nov 22, 2013 12:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6286
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby SpinnerMan » Fri Nov 22, 2013 12:28 pm

blackduckdog2 wrote:I believe you are the only conservative on this forum who would interpret my support of civil disobedience to mean "the law doesn't matter" Well, at least you're not in lock-step; gotta give you that

No, I interpreted your attempt to avoid the question about any limits on Congress by the Constution by throwing out the red herring of civil disobedience.

BTW, civil disobedience can lead to bad law, so what then. A lynch mob was civil disobedience in clear disregard for the Constitution. You are a mob rule guy and not a rule of law guy. So maybe you didn't even think it was a red herring.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15808
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby blackduckdog2 » Fri Nov 22, 2013 12:32 pm

No, you asked whether I believed that if Congress passes it and the President signs it, well you are just SOL and pay your fine or go to jail? And I answered you. And now you're trying to obfuscate by conflating civil disobedience with lynch mobs, and that is where you jumped the shark………I'm out
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6286
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby Indaswamp » Fri Nov 22, 2013 12:34 pm

blackduckdog2 wrote:No, you asked whether I believed that if Congress passes it and the President signs it, well you are just SOL and pay your fine or go to jail? And I answered you. And now you're trying to obfuscate by conflating civil disobedience with lynch mobs, and that is where you jumped the shark………I'm out

why does it even have to go through that process? Obama is changing law as he goes with Obamacare....
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56126
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby SpinnerMan » Fri Nov 22, 2013 12:44 pm

blackduckdog2 wrote:No, you asked whether I believed that if Congress passes it and the President signs it, well you are just SOL and pay your fine or go to jail? And I answered you. And now you're trying to obfuscate by conflating civil disobedience with lynch mobs, and that is where you jumped the shark………I'm out


I used to think you were not that dumb, but just pretending to be, but may I was totally wrong.

I'll try again with one added word that was obvious.

Is there ANYTHING in your opinion that the Constitution prohibits the Federal government from doing in this regard?

Can the federal government mandate that you get colonoscopies or pay a tax penalty?

Can the federal government mandate that you have a $0 deductible health care policy that covers breast augmentation?

Not saying they should. Asking if it would run afoul of the 9th and/or 10th amendment? Is there anything that you would say, sorry, good or bad law it doesn't matter, it violates the 9th and/or 10th amendment?

Or do you believe that if Congress passes it and the President signs it, well you are just Constitutionally SOL and pay your fine or go to jail :hammer:
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15808
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby blackduckdog2 » Fri Nov 22, 2013 1:02 pm

I know I'm gonna hate myself for this, but you know damned well that there is due process, within the constitution, to deal with such a contingency. It's called the Supreme Court. This is so frigging second grade level it's killing me. And yeah, I was right, I hate myself now
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6286
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby SpinnerMan » Fri Nov 22, 2013 1:09 pm

blackduckdog2 wrote:I know I'm gonna hate myself for this, but you know damned well that there is due process, within the constitution, to deal with such a contingency. It's called the Supreme Court. This is so frigging second grade level it's killing me. And yeah, I was right, I hate myself now

So, if George Bush got to appoint all 9 justices, you would treat their opinions as beyond question. The Supreme Court is often wrong. They are just political appointees. What a total cop out anyways. I asked your opinion, which apparently you don't have one.

:hi:

For a while.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15808
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby vincentpa » Fri Nov 22, 2013 2:40 pm



Do those graphs tell the whole story?
In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.
User avatar
vincentpa
hunter
 
Posts: 7715
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby beretta24 » Fri Nov 22, 2013 2:58 pm

User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 5370
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby vincentpa » Fri Nov 22, 2013 3:07 pm

I knew dat. Just didn't have time to look up the graphs.


Sent from my iPhone 5, which sucks my cojones. Don't buy one.
In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.
User avatar
vincentpa
hunter
 
Posts: 7715
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby blackduckdog2 » Fri Nov 22, 2013 3:24 pm

Explain to me the huge disparity in use of the filibuster against Obama vs any other president. That's the issue; that's why the nuclear option was invoked.
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6286
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby dakotashooter2 » Fri Nov 22, 2013 3:38 pm

It's a tactic of a loser............ when you can't win by the rules you change the rules................................ In this day of buying and negotiating votes I think it is important to have more than a simple majority on votes.
User avatar
dakotashooter2
hunter
 
Posts: 1973
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby beretta24 » Fri Nov 22, 2013 3:43 pm

Maybe he's trying to ram through or create more appointments? Maybe there's been more turn over? Maybe they are responding to the fact that he has been less engaged with senate members across the isle than past presidents. The last item has surely been documented. Maybe they are being purely obstructionist?

I didn't have time to review the other items impacted by filibusters. Do you know? I assume its a combination of the above.
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 5370
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby SpinnerMan » Fri Nov 22, 2013 3:46 pm

These idiots complain about the use of the filibuster, but don't care to give it any serious consideration.

The ONLY time that the filibuster of appointments is relevant is when the President is the same party as the majority.

If the President is the same party as the minority, who is going to filibuster? :huh:

For 100% of Obama's time in office, he had a majority in the Senate, so there has always been a point to filibustering by the minority. :fingerhead:

For 50% of GW Bush's time in office, there was no point to a filibuster since the Democrats were in the majority.

For 75% of Clinton's time in office, there was no point to a filibuster since the Republicans were in the majority.

For 100% of GHW Bush's time in office, there was no point to a filibuster since the Democrats were in the majority.

And give that for 0%, not one second, of Obama's time in office, the filibuster was off the table because of control of the Senate, it is just common sense, which is totally lacking in some people, to expect a higher percentage of his appointees filibustered than any recent President.

Of course, that's just a fraction of the story (pun intended). You then have to look at the appointees. Look at Obamacare and what disaster a successful filibuster would have saved us from. Obama would still be very popular and millions more people would have insurance and it would have all been the Republicans fault :thumbsup: I'll bet it was a good thing that many of these people were stopped and the fraction is probably not nearly high enough.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15808
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby clampdaddy » Fri Nov 22, 2013 4:13 pm

blackduckdog2 wrote:Explain to me the huge disparity in use of the filibuster against Obama vs any other president. That's the issue........


Why does Obama get filibuster immunity? That is the issue.
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3594
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby blackduckdog2 » Fri Nov 22, 2013 4:22 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:These idiots complain about the use of the filibuster, but don't care to give it any serious consideration.

The ONLY time that the filibuster of appointments is relevant is when the President is the same party as the majority.

If the President is the same party as the minority, who is going to filibuster? :huh:

For 100% of Obama's time in office, he had a majority in the Senate, so there has always been a point to filibustering by the minority. :fingerhead:

For 50% of GW Bush's time in office, there was no point to a filibuster since the Democrats were in the majority.

For 75% of Clinton's time in office, there was no point to a filibuster since the Republicans were in the majority.

For 100% of GHW Bush's time in office, there was no point to a filibuster since the Democrats were in the majority.

And give that for 0%, not one second, of Obama's time in office, the filibuster was off the table because of control of the Senate, it is just common sense, which is totally lacking in some people, to expect a higher percentage of his appointees filibustered than any recent President.

Of course, that's just a fraction of the story (pun intended). You then have to look at the appointees. Look at Obamacare and what disaster a successful filibuster would have saved us from. Obama would still be very popular and millions more people would have insurance and it would have all been the Republicans fault :thumbsup: I'll bet it was a good thing that many of these people were stopped and the fraction is probably not nearly high enough.

First actually reasonable point you've made all day.

But they have vetoed virtually anything that came across the docket, like
H.R. 12 - Paycheck Fairness Act
H.R. 448 -- Elder Abuse Victims Act
H.R. 466 - Wounded Veteran Job Security Act
H.R. 515 - Radioactive Import Deterrence Act
H.R. 549 -- National Bombing Prevention Act
H.R. 577 - Vision Care for Kids Act
H.R. 626 - Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act
H.R. 1029 - Alien Smuggling and Terrorism Prevention Act
H.R. 1168 -- Veterans Retraining Act
H.R. 1171 - Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program Reauthorization
H.R. 1293 -- Disabled Veterans Home Improvement and Structural Alteration Grant Increase Act
H.R. 1429 -- Stop AIDS in Prison Act
H.R.5281 -- DREAM Act
S.3985 -- Emergency Senior Citizens Relief Act
S.3816 -- Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act
S.3369 -- A bill to provide for additional disclosure requirements for corporations, labor organizations, Super PACs and other entities
S.2237 -- Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act
S.2343 -- Stop the Student Loan Interest Rate Hike Act
S.1660 -- American Jobs Act of 2011
S.3457 -- Veterans Jobs Corps Act

also the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act

It's no way to govern and I've said as much when the Dems use it
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6286
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby blackduckdog2 » Fri Nov 22, 2013 4:23 pm

clampdaddy wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:Explain to me the huge disparity in use of the filibuster against Obama vs any other president. That's the issue........


Why does Obama get filibuster immunity? That is the issue.

Same reason Bush did
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6286
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby ScaupHunter » Fri Nov 22, 2013 4:36 pm

And they saves us billions and possibly trillions in pork and earmarks by fighting those bills. Each individual bill could have been voted against for a thousand justifiable reasons. If you don't think so, just look at the complete goat hump that Obamacare is before trying that argument. If voting against all of those bills stopped one other bill like Ocare from passing then I say filibuster them all!
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6398
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby blackduckdog2 » Fri Nov 22, 2013 4:39 pm

ScaupHunter wrote:And they saves us billions and possibly trillions in pork and earmarks by fighting those bills. Each individual bill could have been voted against for a thousand justifiable reasons. If you don't think so, just look at the complete goat hump that Obamacare is before trying that argument. If voting against all of those bills stopped one other bill like Ocare from passing then I say filibuster them all!

And I say give them their due and vote on them. If they're that bad the American public can vote in new representatives who'll legislate differently. The filibuster is no way to govern
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6286
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron