He Was For It Before He Was Against It

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Cap and trade will make all us wards of the state!

Don't let it happen!

/fear

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Cap and trade will make all us wards of the state!

Don't let it happen!

/fear

If you're not part of the problem...you're part of the solution.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Cap and trade will make all us wards of the state!

Don't let it happen!

/fear

If you're not part of the problem...you're part of the solution.

** you, do gooder commie.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Cap and trade will make all us wards of the state!

Don't let it happen!

/fear

If you're not part of the problem...you're part of the solution.

** you, do gooder commie.

Better buy a horse now...and a bow with a quiver full of arrows.

[mendeleev 68]

It is strange that McCain now opposes cap-and-trade.

But, on the other hand, why should one expect consistency when there's an opportunity for the spokesman of the "Straight-talk express" to engage in political doubletalk?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Are you kidding? It's clear to everyone that you post everything you can find that makes the GOP look bad. Who are you trying to kid? Look, the dems have absolute control over the government. You don't need the GOP for anything. If they want Cap and Trade then do it. Who cares what the opposition wants unless your looking for cover if it all goes bad. Take some advice from someone who has been there. Step back and look at how others see you. It is getting pretty ridiculous. I am out of the partisan arguments and it feels good. Step into the light Steven.

Gary, with all due respect - you're looking at it with your own bias. There are countless threads made here in OT with one bias or another - whether it is negative towards Obama or the Democrats in general. To target me as a lone gunmen is to ignore those threads. Believe it or not, I'd prefer to talk about solutions, but it's hard not to respond to the amount of bitterness and negativity towards our newly elected President.

Now back to Cap and Trade. I'm always up for a good honest argument if anyone wants to argue about the merits of Cap and Trade, but it shouldn't go unnoticed that many of the Republicans in Congress don't want an honest debate about it. They just want to scare the American voters into believing that this is another attempt by the Democrats to tax them into oblivion...which I find utterly absurd given what the Republican Party has done to this country over the last 8 years.

In case you happen to overlook these ones just from this weekend, Gary...

Bill's thread 1

Lucky's thread

Bill's thread 2

[Tahoma 2,292]

John who?

I thought he was never a real Republican. After all, wasn't he was the Democrat's model for bipartisanship?

You can only flog a dead horse for so long.

Riiiight. As if McCain carries no political clout as a senior Senator of the Republican Party.

But let us not get lost as to what this is all about - the Party of Do Nothings will go against anything the Democrats support, even if it was something like Cap and Trade that many prominent Republicans have supported before. Partisan politics at its finest...tsk, tsk.

Why do you need Republicans to pass your agenda? You have control of the Presidency, and both houses of Congress. Like I said, why are you continuing to beat a dead animal? You have twelve months or so left, before the next election cycle begins, and the current government gets lost in the backwash. It only takes a majority to pass in the House, and if the Majority wants to change the Senate rules, it only takes a majority to do that as well.

So, gitter done!

Senate rules can not be changed by a majority of the Senators. It is my understanding that it takes a two-thirds majority vote of the Senate to change a Senate rule. The filibuster is one such rule.

The minority party needs only 40 Senators to support a filibuster and stop legislation. Therefore, Republican support on bills can be necessary in the Senate.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

John who?

I thought he was never a real Republican. After all, wasn't he was the Democrat's model for bipartisanship?

You can only flog a dead horse for so long.

Riiiight. As if McCain carries no political clout as a senior Senator of the Republican Party.

But let us not get lost as to what this is all about - the Party of Do Nothings will go against anything the Democrats support, even if it was something like Cap and Trade that many prominent Republicans have supported before. Partisan politics at its finest...tsk, tsk.

Why do you need Republicans to pass your agenda? You have control of the Presidency, and both houses of Congress. Like I said, why are you continuing to beat a dead animal? You have twelve months or so left, before the next election cycle begins, and the current government gets lost in the backwash. It only takes a majority to pass in the House, and if the Majority wants to change the Senate rules, it only takes a majority to do that as well.

So, gitter done!

Senate rules can not be changed by a majority of the Senators. It is my understanding that it takes a two-thirds majority vote of the Senate to change a Senate rule. The filibuster is one such rule.

The minority party needs only 40 Senators to support a filibuster and stop legislation. Therefore, Republican support on bills can be necessary in the Senate.

The Senate does not restrict the total time allowed for debate; instead, a motion for cloture must be passed to end debate. A three-fifths majority (as of 2009, 60 Senators), is required to approve the cloture motion and proceed to a vote on the main issue. Thus, although a bill might have majority support, a minority of 41 Senators can prevent a final vote, effectively defeating the bill. In practice, if it is clear that the motion for cloture will not carry, the bill may simply be tabled so that the Senate can conduct other business. From time to time, however, the margin of votes for cloture may be very close, and the minority may wish to stall the cloture vote for as long as possible. Because debate time is unlimited, Senators may simply speak endlessly on the Senate floor to prevent a vote from taking place; this tactic is known as a filibuster. A formal change to the Senate's rules is even more difficult to make: Senate rule 22 says that such a change requires a two-thirds majority of those present and voting to end debate (67 votes if all senators vote).[2]

A point of order is a parliamentary motion used to remind the body of its written rules and established precedents, usually when a particular rule or precedent is not being followed. When a senator raises a point of order, the presiding officer of the Senate immediately rules on the validity of the point of order, but this ruling may be appealed and reversed by the whole Senate. Ordinarily, a point of order compels the Senate to follow its rules and precedents; however, the Senate may choose to vote down the point of order. When this occurs, a new precedent is established, and the old rule or precedent no longer governs Senate procedure. Similarly, it is possible to raise a point of order and state that the standard procedure of the Senate is actually different than the current rules and precedents suggest. If this point of order is sustained, a new precedent is established, and it controls Senate procedure thenceforth.

The Nuclear Option is used in response to a filibuster or other dilatory tactic. A senator makes a point of order calling for an immediate vote on the measure before the body, outlining what circumstances allow for this. The presiding officer of the Senate, usually the vice president of the United States or the president pro tempore, makes a parliamentary ruling upholding the senator's point of order. The Constitution is cited at this point, since otherwise the presiding officer is bound by precedent. A supporter of the filibuster may challenge the ruling by asking, "Is the decision of the Chair to stand as the judgment of the Senate?" This is referred to as "appealing from the Chair." An opponent of the filibuster will then move to table the appeal. As tabling is non-debatable, a vote is held immediately. A simple majority decides the issue. If the appeal is successfully tabled, then the presiding officer's ruling that the filibuster is unconstitutional is thereby upheld. Thus a simple majority is able to cut off debate, and the Senate moves to a vote on the substantive issue under consideration. The effect of the nuclear option is not limited to the single question under consideration, as it would be in a cloture vote. Rather, the nuclear option effects a change in the operational rules of the Senate, so that the filibuster or dilatory tactic would thereafter be barred by the new precedent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

[GaryC 7]

Are you kidding? It's clear to everyone that you post everything you can find that makes the GOP look bad. Who are you trying to kid? Look, the dems have absolute control over the government. You don't need the GOP for anything. If they want Cap and Trade then do it. Who cares what the opposition wants unless your looking for cover if it all goes bad. Take some advice from someone who has been there. Step back and look at how others see you. It is getting pretty ridiculous. I am out of the partisan arguments and it feels good. Step into the light Steven.

Gary, with all due respect - you're looking at it with your own bias. There are countless threads made here in OT with one bias or another - whether it is negative towards Obama or the Democrats in general. To target me as a lone gunmen is to ignore those threads. Believe it or not, I'd prefer to talk about solutions, but it's hard not to respond to the amount of bitterness and negativity towards our newly elected President.

Now back to Cap and Trade. I'm always up for a good honest argument if anyone wants to argue about the merits of Cap and Trade, but it shouldn't go unnoticed that many of the Republicans in Congress don't want an honest debate about it. They just want to scare the American voters into believing that this is another attempt by the Democrats to tax them into oblivion...which I find utterly absurd given what the Republican Party has done to this country over the last 8 years.

In case you happen to overlook these ones just from this weekend, Gary...

Bill's thread 1

Lucky's thread

Bill's thread 2

Hmmm.... How does that compare to yours? Lets see.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...=193548&hl=

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...=193592&hl=

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...=193578&hl=

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...=193558&hl=

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...=193523&hl=

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...=193314&hl=

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...=193321&hl=

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...=193184&hl=

This is just in the last 2 days Steven!! These are all heavily biased op-ed pieces posted for no other reason than to bash the GOP. TBH I really don't care about the GOP any more. I didn't vote for a single rep in the last election and for the good of the country I really hope Mr. Obama is successful. Try a little moderation man!

[Tahoma 2,292]

John who?

I thought he was never a real Republican. After all, wasn't he was the Democrat's model for bipartisanship?

You can only flog a dead horse for so long.

Correction. John McCain was the GOP's model for bipartisanship. At least, that's what his campaign was selling. He was also selling himself as a Maverick despite his death-bed conversion.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Are you kidding? It's clear to everyone that you post everything you can find that makes the GOP look bad. Who are you trying to kid? Look, the dems have absolute control over the government. You don't need the GOP for anything. If they want Cap and Trade then do it. Who cares what the opposition wants unless your looking for cover if it all goes bad. Take some advice from someone who has been there. Step back and look at how others see you. It is getting pretty ridiculous. I am out of the partisan arguments and it feels good. Step into the light Steven.

Gary, with all due respect - you're looking at it with your own bias. There are countless threads made here in OT with one bias or another - whether it is negative towards Obama or the Democrats in general. To target me as a lone gunmen is to ignore those threads. Believe it or not, I'd prefer to talk about solutions, but it's hard not to respond to the amount of bitterness and negativity towards our newly elected President.

Now back to Cap and Trade. I'm always up for a good honest argument if anyone wants to argue about the merits of Cap and Trade, but it shouldn't go unnoticed that many of the Republicans in Congress don't want an honest debate about it. They just want to scare the American voters into believing that this is another attempt by the Democrats to tax them into oblivion...which I find utterly absurd given what the Republican Party has done to this country over the last 8 years.

In case you happen to overlook these ones just from this weekend, Gary...

Bill's thread 1

Lucky's thread

Bill's thread 2

Hmmm.... How does that compare to yours? Lets see.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...=193548&hl=

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...=193592&hl=

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...=193578&hl=

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...=193558&hl=

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...=193523&hl=

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...=193314&hl=

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...=193321&hl=

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...=193184&hl=

This is just in the last 2 days Steven!! These are all heavily biased op-ed pieces posted for no other reason than to bash the GOP. TBH I really don't care about the GOP any more. I didn't vote for a single rep in the last election and for the good of the country I really hope Mr. Obama is successful. Try a little moderation man!

Actually, Gary - if you actually read or watch (many of them are videos), they are in direct response to Republicans attacks over the Democrats' Cap and Trade proposal that is going before Congress. You think it's helping move forward an honest debate about Cap and Trade when Republicans like Boehner call it a piece of #######? Or the gross misrepresentations of the facts which get posted here in threads, like Lucky's thread titled, Democrats Refuse to Allow Skeptic to Testify Alongside Gore At Congressional Hearing? I think what we should all be striving for is an honest debate on these very important topics...whether it is Cap and Trade, healthcare, or the bailout. That's all I want, but I also won't pull any punches if there is a deliberate attempt by the Right Wing to misrepresent the views of the Left...which they seem to do all too often.

[c_and_a 0]

I am yet to see the esteemed Colonel post an original thought on this board, all he does is paste articles from lefty media all day, every day.

Do you have an original thought? Or do you depend on the media to supply your way of thinking just like you depend on Obama to provide everyone with every entitlement under the sun?

The individual really is going extinct.

[Tahoma 2,292]

John who?

I thought he was never a real Republican. After all, wasn't he was the Democrat's model for bipartisanship?

You can only flog a dead horse for so long.

Riiiight. As if McCain carries no political clout as a senior Senator of the Republican Party.

But let us not get lost as to what this is all about - the Party of Do Nothings will go against anything the Democrats support, even if it was something like Cap and Trade that many prominent Republicans have supported before. Partisan politics at its finest...tsk, tsk.

Why do you need Republicans to pass your agenda? You have control of the Presidency, and both houses of Congress. Like I said, why are you continuing to beat a dead animal? You have twelve months or so left, before the next election cycle begins, and the current government gets lost in the backwash. It only takes a majority to pass in the House, and if the Majority wants to change the Senate rules, it only takes a majority to do that as well.

So, gitter done!

Senate rules can not be changed by a majority of the Senators. It is my understanding that it takes a two-thirds majority vote of the Senate to change a Senate rule. The filibuster is one such rule.

The minority party needs only 40 Senators to support a filibuster and stop legislation. Therefore, Republican support on bills can be necessary in the Senate.

The Senate does not restrict the total time allowed for debate; instead, a motion for cloture must be passed to end debate. A three-fifths majority (as of 2009, 60 Senators), is required to approve the cloture motion and proceed to a vote on the main issue. Thus, although a bill might have majority support, a minority of 41 Senators can prevent a final vote, effectively defeating the bill. In practice, if it is clear that the motion for cloture will not carry, the bill may simply be tabled so that the Senate can conduct other business. From time to time, however, the margin of votes for cloture may be very close, and the minority may wish to stall the cloture vote for as long as possible. Because debate time is unlimited, Senators may simply speak endlessly on the Senate floor to prevent a vote from taking place; this tactic is known as a filibuster. A formal change to the Senate's rules is even more difficult to make: Senate rule 22 says that such a change requires a two-thirds majority of those present and voting to end debate (67 votes if all senators vote).[2]

A point of order is a parliamentary motion used to remind the body of its written rules and established precedents, usually when a particular rule or precedent is not being followed. When a senator raises a point of order, the presiding officer of the Senate immediately rules on the validity of the point of order, but this ruling may be appealed and reversed by the whole Senate. Ordinarily, a point of order compels the Senate to follow its rules and precedents; however, the Senate may choose to vote down the point of order. When this occurs, a new precedent is established, and the old rule or precedent no longer governs Senate procedure. Similarly, it is possible to raise a point of order and state that the standard procedure of the Senate is actually different than the current rules and precedents suggest. If this point of order is sustained, a new precedent is established, and it controls Senate procedure thenceforth.

The Nuclear Option is used in response to a filibuster or other dilatory tactic. A senator makes a point of order calling for an immediate vote on the measure before the body, outlining what circumstances allow for this. The presiding officer of the Senate, usually the vice president of the United States or the president pro tempore, makes a parliamentary ruling upholding the senator's point of order. The Constitution is cited at this point, since otherwise the presiding officer is bound by precedent. A supporter of the filibuster may challenge the ruling by asking, "Is the decision of the Chair to stand as the judgment of the Senate?" This is referred to as "appealing from the Chair." An opponent of the filibuster will then move to table the appeal. As tabling is non-debatable, a vote is held immediately. A simple majority decides the issue. If the appeal is successfully tabled, then the presiding officer's ruling that the filibuster is unconstitutional is thereby upheld. Thus a simple majority is able to cut off debate, and the Senate moves to a vote on the substantive issue under consideration. The effect of the nuclear option is not limited to the single question under consideration, as it would be in a cloture vote. Rather, the nuclear option effects a change in the operational rules of the Senate, so that the filibuster or dilatory tactic would thereafter be barred by the new precedent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

The "nuclear option" was an attempted power-grab that was cooked up by Senate Republicans in 2005 when they were trying to force confirmation of their conservative judges. It wasn't used at the time, and it is doubtful if it ever will be used in the future, not because it would most likely end up before the Supreme Court, but because of more practical considerations...such as both parties knowing that they won't be in power forever (and, therefore, the nuclear option could be used against them).

The filibuster is still alive and well in the Senate. Or, more accurately, the threat of a filibuster is still alive and well. During the recent past, it seems that the minority party only needs to threaten a filibuster in order to stop a bill, rather than have to actually carry out a filibuster. This effectively kills a bill.

The upshot of this is that the Democrats do not have a free ride to pass any bill they desire.

[Tahoma 2,292]

I am yet to see the esteemed Colonel post an original thought on this board, all he does is paste articles from lefty media all day, every day.

Do you have an original thought? Or do you depend on the media to supply your way of thinking just like you depend on Obama to provide everyone with every entitlement under the sun?

The individual really is going extinct.

If I had to tell you how ridiculous your comment is...you wouldn't understand.

Now...back to the topic. What are your thoughts on cap and trade?

Edited April 26, 2009 by Tahoma

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

John who?

I thought he was never a real Republican. After all, wasn't he was the Democrat's model for bipartisanship?

You can only flog a dead horse for so long.

Riiiight. As if McCain carries no political clout as a senior Senator of the Republican Party.

But let us not get lost as to what this is all about - the Party of Do Nothings will go against anything the Democrats support, even if it was something like Cap and Trade that many prominent Republicans have supported before. Partisan politics at its finest...tsk, tsk.

Why do you need Republicans to pass your agenda? You have control of the Presidency, and both houses of Congress. Like I said, why are you continuing to beat a dead animal? You have twelve months or so left, before the next election cycle begins, and the current government gets lost in the backwash. It only takes a majority to pass in the House, and if the Majority wants to change the Senate rules, it only takes a majority to do that as well.

So, gitter done!

Senate rules can not be changed by a majority of the Senators. It is my understanding that it takes a two-thirds majority vote of the Senate to change a Senate rule. The filibuster is one such rule.

The minority party needs only 40 Senators to support a filibuster and stop legislation. Therefore, Republican support on bills can be necessary in the Senate.

The Senate does not restrict the total time allowed for debate; instead, a motion for cloture must be passed to end debate. A three-fifths majority (as of 2009, 60 Senators), is required to approve the cloture motion and proceed to a vote on the main issue. Thus, although a bill might have majority support, a minority of 41 Senators can prevent a final vote, effectively defeating the bill. In practice, if it is clear that the motion for cloture will not carry, the bill may simply be tabled so that the Senate can conduct other business. From time to time, however, the margin of votes for cloture may be very close, and the minority may wish to stall the cloture vote for as long as possible. Because debate time is unlimited, Senators may simply speak endlessly on the Senate floor to prevent a vote from taking place; this tactic is known as a filibuster. A formal change to the Senate's rules is even more difficult to make: Senate rule 22 says that such a change requires a two-thirds majority of those present and voting to end debate (67 votes if all senators vote).[2]

A point of order is a parliamentary motion used to remind the body of its written rules and established precedents, usually when a particular rule or precedent is not being followed. When a senator raises a point of order, the presiding officer of the Senate immediately rules on the validity of the point of order, but this ruling may be appealed and reversed by the whole Senate. Ordinarily, a point of order compels the Senate to follow its rules and precedents; however, the Senate may choose to vote down the point of order. When this occurs, a new precedent is established, and the old rule or precedent no longer governs Senate procedure. Similarly, it is possible to raise a point of order and state that the standard procedure of the Senate is actually different than the current rules and precedents suggest. If this point of order is sustained, a new precedent is established, and it controls Senate procedure thenceforth.

The Nuclear Option is used in response to a filibuster or other dilatory tactic. A senator makes a point of order calling for an immediate vote on the measure before the body, outlining what circumstances allow for this. The presiding officer of the Senate, usually the vice president of the United States or the president pro tempore, makes a parliamentary ruling upholding the senator's point of order. The Constitution is cited at this point, since otherwise the presiding officer is bound by precedent. A supporter of the filibuster may challenge the ruling by asking, "Is the decision of the Chair to stand as the judgment of the Senate?" This is referred to as "appealing from the Chair." An opponent of the filibuster will then move to table the appeal. As tabling is non-debatable, a vote is held immediately. A simple majority decides the issue. If the appeal is successfully tabled, then the presiding officer's ruling that the filibuster is unconstitutional is thereby upheld. Thus a simple majority is able to cut off debate, and the Senate moves to a vote on the substantive issue under consideration. The effect of the nuclear option is not limited to the single question under consideration, as it would be in a cloture vote. Rather, the nuclear option effects a change in the operational rules of the Senate, so that the filibuster or dilatory tactic would thereafter be barred by the new precedent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

The "nuclear option" was an attempted power-grab that was cooked up by Senate Republicans in 2005 when they were trying to force confirmation of their conservative judges. It wasn't used at the time, and it is doubtful if it ever will be used in the future, not because it would most likely end up before the Supreme Court, but because of more practical considerations...such as both parties knowing that they won't be in power forever (and, therefore, the nuclear option could be used against them).

The filibuster is still alive and well in the Senate. Or, more accurately, the threat of a filibuster is still alive and well. During the recent past, it seems that the minority party only needs to threaten a filibuster in order to stop a bill, rather than have to actually carry out a filibuster. This effectively kills a bill.

The upshot of this is that the Democrats do not have a free ride to pass any bill they desire.

In 1892, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Ballin that both houses of Congress are parliamentary bodies, implying that they may make procedural rules by majority vote. In 1917, Senator John J. Walsh contended the majority of the Senate could revise a procedural rule at any time, despite the requirement of the Senate rules that a two-thirds majority is necessary to approve a rule change.

--from the precious cite.

Harry Reid is not as amiable as Trent Lott, and has already used proceedures, like "Filling the Tree" to avoid Senate Rules. This has been brewing for a while, and chances are, this proceedure will be invoked again, as it has been, several times in the past.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filling_the_tree

Edited April 26, 2009 by Mister_Bill