Interesting read from a conservative blogger

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

Interesting read from a conservative blogger

Postby blackduckdog2 » Sat Nov 23, 2013 12:12 am

Be sure and check the comments section……….apparently it is devilishly tricky to determine exactly where cloture is coming from:
"The Heathen Republican analyzes the history of filibustering and sees no difference between its use between Democrats and Republicans. He points to a high number of filibusters in the last two years of the Bush administration. Oh those pesky facts. Those filibusters in 2007 and 2008 weren't against President Bush. Republicans tied up the Senate against the Democratic majority beginning when Democrats took over the Senate in 2006. Oops."
http://heathenrepublican.blogspot.com/2011/10/on-unprecedented-republican-filibusters.html
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6290
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am


Re: Interesting read from a conservative blogger

Postby Glimmerjim » Mon Nov 25, 2013 9:53 pm

blackduckdog2 wrote:Be sure and check the comments section……….apparently it is devilishly tricky to determine exactly where cloture is coming from:
"The Heathen Republican analyzes the history of filibustering and sees no difference between its use between Democrats and Republicans. He points to a high number of filibusters in the last two years of the Bush administration. Oh those pesky facts. Those filibusters in 2007 and 2008 weren't against President Bush. Republicans tied up the Senate against the Democratic majority beginning when Democrats took over the Senate in 2006. Oops."
http://heathenrepublican.blogspot.com/2011/10/on-unprecedented-republican-filibusters.html

Bet you weren't prepared for the onslaught of rebuttal against that one, huh BDD2? :lol3: Apparently when they went to circle the wagons they forgot that Festus had used the compass to roast a horned-toad over the campfire the other nite.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10885
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Interesting read from a conservative blogger

Postby assateague » Mon Nov 25, 2013 11:15 pm

Because there's absolutely no point to it. Duh.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Interesting read from a conservative blogger

Postby blackduckdog2 » Tue Nov 26, 2013 2:52 am

assateague wrote:Because there's absolutely no point to it. Duh.

interesting observation
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6290
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: Interesting read from a conservative blogger

Postby assateague » Tue Nov 26, 2013 5:55 am

Believe it or not, I wasn't trying to be flippant, but it was late, and the Redskins had just gotten their asses handed to them. Again.

But seriously, I read the story, and don't see what the point is- that filibusters are used when a minority party doesn't like something? Of course they are. That's where the "duh" came in.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Interesting read from a conservative blogger

Postby boney fingers » Tue Nov 26, 2013 6:58 am

Hypocrisy on both sides of the isle on this one for the last 50 years.
boney fingers
hunter
 
Posts: 882
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:30 pm

Re: Interesting read from a conservative blogger

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Nov 26, 2013 9:50 am

boney fingers wrote:Hypocrisy on both sides of the isle on this one for the last 50 years.

Politicians being hypocritical. No way. Next thing you will tell me they lie too.

If you do that, it would crush my notion that when I moved out of my parents house, I couldn't just continue to live like an adolescent and let the politicians take care of all the important things in my life. If they are hypocritical liars, how can I count on them to take care of my food, shelter, health care, and retirement? :huh: That would be just plain stupid to give that kind of power to a bunch of hypocritical liars.

Even if they are hypocritical liars, they must be competent and experienced. Otherwise, I'll really feel retarded putting my faith in them.

blackduckdog2 wrote:Those filibusters in 2007 and 2008 weren't against President Bush. Republicans tied up the Senate against the Democratic majority beginning when Democrats took over the Senate in 2006. Oops.
Not oops. That is where the massive spending increases and massive deficits and there crippling effects on the economy occurred. They failed to stop this horrible policy. They were right and the Democrats were wrong. Bush never should have signed them. That's part of why he crashed and burned as a President. He believed they could do things that they could not and create more via redistribution.

Image

BTW, some more pesky facts.

Image
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: 16433
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Interesting read from a conservative blogger

Postby ScaupHunter » Tue Nov 26, 2013 10:36 am

That chart is pretty damning! That is a very interesting look at the money and how it has been funded and spent.
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: 6766
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: Interesting read from a conservative blogger

Postby blackduckdog2 » Tue Nov 26, 2013 12:34 pm

assateague wrote:Believe it or not, I wasn't trying to be flippant, but it was late, and the Redskins had just gotten their asses handed to them. Again.

But seriously, I read the story, and don't see what the point is- that filibusters are used when a minority party doesn't like something? Of course they are. That's where the "duh" came in.

My guys (Big Blue) ain't exactly lighting it up either…………the article was something of a refutation of Spinner's earlier assertion that filibusters under the Bush presidency must be attributed to Democrats (a common error in conservative accounting of the numbers), because why would Republicans filibuster when they have veto power in the Oval Office? But they do…..for a variety of reasons, not least of which is the fact that they're not necessarily sure their own guy on the Oval Office actually WILL use the veto pen. Other times it's to save him from some bad press that a veto might generate
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6290
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: Interesting read from a conservative blogger

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Nov 26, 2013 12:40 pm

blackduckdog2 wrote:
assateague wrote:Believe it or not, I wasn't trying to be flippant, but it was late, and the Redskins had just gotten their asses handed to them. Again.

But seriously, I read the story, and don't see what the point is- that filibusters are used when a minority party doesn't like something? Of course they are. That's where the "duh" came in.

My guys (Big Blue) ain't exactly lighting it up either…………the article was something of a refutation of Spinner's earlier assertion that filibusters under the Bush presidency must be attributed to Democrats (a common error in conservative accounting of the numbers), because why would Republicans filibuster when they have veto power in the Oval Office? But they do…..for a variety of reasons, not least of which is the fact that they're not necessarily sure their own guy on the Oval Office actually WILL use the veto pen. Other times it's to save him from some bad press that a veto might generate

FILIBUSTER OF PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS :fingerhead: :fingerhead: :fingerhead: :fingerhead: :fingerhead: :fingerhead:

That's what we were talking about. That is what the Democrats have changed. Not of legislation. They kept that in place.

Come on man. You really are smarter than you let on in here.
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: 16433
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Interesting read from a conservative blogger

Postby blackduckdog2 » Tue Nov 26, 2013 1:21 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:
assateague wrote:Believe it or not, I wasn't trying to be flippant, but it was late, and the Redskins had just gotten their asses handed to them. Again.

But seriously, I read the story, and don't see what the point is- that filibusters are used when a minority party doesn't like something? Of course they are. That's where the "duh" came in.

My guys (Big Blue) ain't exactly lighting it up either…………the article was something of a refutation of Spinner's earlier assertion that filibusters under the Bush presidency must be attributed to Democrats (a common error in conservative accounting of the numbers), because why would Republicans filibuster when they have veto power in the Oval Office? But they do…..for a variety of reasons, not least of which is the fact that they're not necessarily sure their own guy on the Oval Office actually WILL use the veto pen. Other times it's to save him from some bad press that a veto might generate

FILIBUSTER OF PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS :fingerhead: :fingerhead: :fingerhead: :fingerhead: :fingerhead: :fingerhead:

That's what we were talking about. That is what the Democrats have changed. Not of legislation. They kept that in place.

Come on man. You really are smarter than you let on in here.

Nice try…….you generalize when it suits your narrative, then go all specific when it doesn't. The filibuster numbers have been all over the place and that's what I was addressing. Your assertion was, in fact, more specific and while I should not have tied this rebuttal to it, the conservative narrative on this subject has absolutely included filibusters of every stripe
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6290
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: Interesting read from a conservative blogger

Postby ScaupHunter » Tue Nov 26, 2013 1:26 pm

What do you expect them to do? Pick one topic and only filibuster on that one? When you have a bunch of liberals running amok you use all the tools you have to stop the stupidity.
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: 6766
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: Interesting read from a conservative blogger

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Nov 26, 2013 2:02 pm

blackduckdog2 wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:
assateague wrote:Believe it or not, I wasn't trying to be flippant, but it was late, and the Redskins had just gotten their asses handed to them. Again.

But seriously, I read the story, and don't see what the point is- that filibusters are used when a minority party doesn't like something? Of course they are. That's where the "duh" came in.

My guys (Big Blue) ain't exactly lighting it up either…………the article was something of a refutation of Spinner's earlier assertion that filibusters under the Bush presidency must be attributed to Democrats (a common error in conservative accounting of the numbers), because why would Republicans filibuster when they have veto power in the Oval Office? But they do…..for a variety of reasons, not least of which is the fact that they're not necessarily sure their own guy on the Oval Office actually WILL use the veto pen. Other times it's to save him from some bad press that a veto might generate

FILIBUSTER OF PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS :fingerhead: :fingerhead: :fingerhead: :fingerhead: :fingerhead: :fingerhead:

That's what we were talking about. That is what the Democrats have changed. Not of legislation. They kept that in place.

Come on man. You really are smarter than you let on in here.

Nice try…….you generalize when it suits your narrative, then go all specific when it doesn't. The filibuster numbers have been all over the place and that's what I was addressing. Your assertion was, in fact, more specific and while I should not have tied this rebuttal to it, the conservative narrative on this subject has absolutely included filibusters of every stripe

Not at all.

Here's the thread we were debating in
And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic
The Senate ended filibuster of appointees, except for the Supreme Court. Why did they keep that if the filibuster of appointees is bad policy? Same reason the ended the filibuster of other appointees. Politics :yes:

I am pro-filibuster in ALL cases. I never want to see either party have a filibuster proof majority. If you cannot convince at least a small fraction of the opposite party, it should never become law.

Than you made this statement.

blackduckdog2 wrote: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.

Which as you point out, the Republicans in this link were NOT filibustering the President or the President's party. In addition, the action of the Senate Democrats would have no impact on these filibusters because they left that rule in tact.

And this was at the beginning of my response.

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

See filibuster of appointments is what we were talking about. The thing the Democrats changed. That is what we were talking about.

And as I made clear, I am pro-filibuster. If it can be sustained, the will of the vast majority of people is not being thwarted. If the vast majority of the people are calling for something, their is great political risk in a filibuster and I have respect for people if they take that risk for what they believe is right. Either time will cause public opinion to move towards the obstructionist or elections will eliminate the obstructionist. There is no hurry. Good policy is not done in a hurry nor come from the emotions of the day.

I'm pro-filibuster. I'm pro-veto. Sadly, the wildly unpopular President signing terrible legislation made it necessary for his own party to filibuster legislation that we would not veto. And most sadly, it failed and the nation was harmed badly.
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: 16433
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Interesting read from a conservative blogger

Postby blackduckdog2 » Tue Nov 26, 2013 2:20 pm

and if you'll recall I absolutely gave you props for the point you'd made, and further admitted that I ought not have attached this more recent (and general) rebuttal to your point……When I originally posted it, it was in response to a more generalized discussion of who used the filibuster for what, and when. For the third time now…..I should NOT have attached that to your point, which was a good one. We cool?
Now of course you like the veto and the filibuster because you want government to do as little as possible, as a general rule (please do not extrapolate from that, as you are won't to do, to the polar opposite that since I do not like the filibuster, I must want government to do as MUCH as possible. Try to avoid the black and white extremes just this once. I know you can do it) I feel like government was never intended to run this way (filibuster at the ready) because there are provisions for nine super-majorities in the constitution, and none are for presidential appointments. Pretty simple to me. Veto's fine, that's spelled out clearly enough
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6290
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: Interesting read from a conservative blogger

Postby ScaupHunter » Tue Nov 26, 2013 2:30 pm

BDD2,

How about this. I can agree that the filibuster is not necessary, if you can agree that we will create no new laws until all existing laws are enforced to the fullest extent of the law.

Until such time as that happens we quite literally need to government to stop making new laws of any sort. If the Filibuster helps us towards that end it needs to be made easier not tougher to pursue.
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: 6766
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: Interesting read from a conservative blogger

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Nov 26, 2013 2:51 pm

blackduckdog2 wrote:and if you'll recall I absolutely gave you props for the point you'd made, and further admitted that I ought not have attached this more recent (and general) rebuttal to your point……When I originally posted it, it was in response to a more generalized discussion of who used the filibuster for what, and when. For the third time now…..I should NOT have attached that to your point, which was a good one. We cool?
Now of course you like the veto and the filibuster because you want government to do as little as possible, as a general rule (please do not extrapolate from that, as you are won't to do, to the polar opposite that since I do not like the filibuster, I must want government to do as MUCH as possible. Try to avoid the black and white extremes just this once. I know you can do it) I feel like government was never intended to run this way (filibuster at the ready) because there are provisions for nine super-majorities in the constitution, and none are for presidential appointments. Pretty simple to me. Veto's fine, that's spelled out clearly enough

Sorry if I misunderstood. We're always cool even if it may seem otherwise.

Whether you want the government to do a lot or a little, I know you appreciate the need for the actions of government to be thoughtful and deliberative. That is my argument for both the veto and filibuster. It is not a small government argument. It is a don't act rashly without time for serious consideration of what you are doing argument.

Everybody knows this and I wish it had been put in the Constitution.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/23/campbell.brown.transparency/index.html?_s=PM:POLITICS#cnnSTCText
The president's old campaign Web site still has this commitment there for all to see:

"As president, Obama will not sign any nonemergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House Web site for five days."

Well, the president broke that promise barely a week after taking office when he signed the Lilly Ledbetter Bill dealing with equal pay for men and women.

BTW, I believe the GOP has made and broken similar promises in the past.

Ideally, I'd have the Senate still appointed by the state legislatures so the feds can't dump things on the state without the state's consent. I'd also mandate that all legislation be available for months before the final vote is taken without amendment in order for the represented to have time to express their opinions to the representatives and time for their representatives to digest it and express their opinions to their constituents. I believe then, there should be no filibuster of legislation. Presidential appointees, I don't see a way to prevent a rush job without the threat of filibuster, which is a de facto 60% vote and I'm fine with that.

I really do believe in a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. At the local level, I want the government to do far more than probably most of my fellow "right-winger". I just don't want one size fits all. I don't want the all or nothing. I don't want the huge cost of federal screw ups. If Romneycare was so awesome, every state in the country is empowered to pass a version that suits their needs. There is no need to put all our eggs into an Obamacare basket. If Obamacare was Illinoiscare, millions of people would not be losing their health care, having their hours cut to part time to avoid the penalties, and all the huge screw ups embedded in that law because they had to pass it in a mad rush before the narrow window to ram it through closed.

If it works, I'm for it. Making people less free, does not work, except for those in power. That's why I want government at all levels to do less. The federal government, there is just no point in taking such a huge risk in the event that it fails. There is just no reason to put all our eggs in one basket for any domestic policy whether I support it or oppose it. It's just too big of a gamble and it is not necessary to get good policy enacted nationwide.
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: 16433
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL


Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests