GOP's Brown wins Mass. Senate seat in epic upset

[nowhereman 1]

Lets see if i got this right, we can point out Bush's political incompetence, cause he is a dude, but if we point out Palin's political incompetence, we are being hypocritical? Have you looked in the mirror lately?

Or check out the 3862 Obama Sucks threads in the OT forums... they are rife with personal attacks & questioning his intelligence. However this thread is about Scott Brown so lets get back to him.

[Danno 1,228]

Are we still trying to ease the pain by regurgitating Palin?

Hey Libs..... YOUR HOUSE ON FIRE.

Palin it tomorrows problem, today you have bigger fish to fry.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

It didn't really happen like that, in terms of a decent into corruption. No one has actually been able to pin point the exact causes of the decline of the Roman Empire, although there are many theories. My dad's personal favourite was lead in the water.

To school the uneducated elitists here - its really a reference to a nation destroying itself from within, by whatever means.

It doesn't mean we wear sheets and golden leaves on our heads.

Or check out the 3862 Obama Sucks threads in the OT forums... they are rife with personal attacks & questioning his intelligence. However this thread is about Scott Brown so lets get back to him.

Yes and there are just as many about Bush and Mccain or Palin. So get off it. You're always siding with the far left while you try to play the "they're both bad" game.

Are we still trying to ease the pain by regurgitating Palin?

Hey Libs..... YOUR HOUSE ON FIRE.

Palin it tomorrows problem, today you have bigger fish to fry.

It had nothing to do with Palin, but they heard her name and started foaming at the mouth and shaking.

[nowhereman 1]

Are we still trying to ease the pain by regurgitating Palin?

Hey Libs..... YOUR HOUSE ON FIRE.

Palin it tomorrows problem, today you have bigger fish to fry.

The original reference was totally on point... I was actually complimenting Brown by favorably comparing him to Palin. Your boy Joe is the one that derailed the train so if you want to blame someone for taking the thread point your finger at him. As for "easing my pain" I'm an independent & I vote for the better candidate, not by party lines. Again I know little about Brown but my initial impression of him was positive, so if I lived in MA I may very well have voted for him.

It had nothing to do with Palin, but theyI heard her name and started foaming at the mouth and shaking.

Fixxored that for you Joe

Edited January 20, 2010 by nowhereman

[Peikko 1,575]

You'll not get through to him, it's not possible.

[Ban Hammer 13,657]

Joe's reputation precedes him & trust me I know I'd get a better dialogue with a turkey sandwich than him. As for Palin she is an attractive & entertaining woman & like W I'd knock back a few drinks with her if given the opportunity, but I certainly wouldn't vote for her.

so how often do you talk to a turkey sandwich?

[spookyturtle 9,466]

so how often do you talk to a turkey sandwich?

And an even more important question, does the sandwich talk back?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

To get anything done we now require 60 votes instead of a simple majority. Its much easier to get a majority to agree than a super majority, and it ends up giving to much power to too few people who will bend it to whatever political agenda they have.

Republicans have showed little interest in solving problems we have, just interested in obstructing any attempts by the Democrats to do so and the filibuster power that they are abusing, gives them way to much power.

The 60 vote filibuster rule was implemented by Democrats. Before that the minority party had to take "the floor" and hold it by continually speaking, that was back when a filibuster WAS a filibuster. (See the movie M.r Smith Goes to Washington if you are still having trouble understanding) This was changed in the 1950's. The Senate rules can be changed by the Senate majority. The Democrats could end the 60 vote rule today with a simple majority vote. They do not, and will not, because they realize this rule is to the advantage of the minority party...which they will be again after this years election. This is the same reason the Republicans did not change it when they had control of the Senate. No political party is goi g to remove a rule that has proven to be so valuable to use against the other party.

The Republicans, when they controlled the Senate threatened to eliminate the 60 vote rule and were called every bad name in the book by the Democrats who were then using it to obstruct anything the Republicans wanted, the case in point at the time being judicial appointments.

This is nothing new, has been in place ( I will bet my @ss) longer than you have been alive, and serves a purpose. Our system is set up in order to make it difficult to pass laws, it is NOT supposed to be easy. It is supposed to be very difficult and requires really a big majority of our representatives to do. Our constitution is set up on the premise that government gridlock is a GOOD thing. Congress, despite the fact that they could move faster, does not want to. Lobbyists. They make more money and bring home more pork by being slow and deliberate and holding out for what they want. There is absolutely NO incentive for them to produce anything but arguments

But let's be clear, a BILL needs ONLY a majority vote to pass the Senate (with some small exceptions which the health care bill is not) and that has never changed. What is needed is a 60 vote cloture to stop a filibuster and BRING a bill to a vote. It is basically a vote to decide if you will have a vote. Once you have a vote on the bill it is a simple majority to pass. 60 votes is called a "cloture" A "super majority" is 2/3 (67 votes) in the Senate and is needed for things like veto overrides and constitutional amendments ONLY.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I agree that the filibuster is there for a good reason, but it was never intended to be used to force all issues to be passed with a 60 vote majority. Basically the issue is that it doesn't cost (politically or monitarily) anything to use the filibuster option. so now it gets used all the time for everything even when its not really justified.

In its current form i think the filibuster is bad. But if it was changed so that it would actually cost the minority party in some way to use the option, then it would be ok. It wouldn't be used as tool of constant obstruction, and Republicans would have to be willing to participate if they want to be able to go home and provide accomplishments as a reason to get re-elected..

While I prefer people ignorant of the process be on the other team, they should also refrain from telling us how it should work, when the rules THEY made do not work to THEIR advantage.

But here is the deal...present a realistic, beneficial and comprehensive healthcare plan and the people of this country will be all over it...understand? If you (Democrats) keep tossing up these pieces of legislative VOMIT, they are not going to get passed. Put up something we can all vote for, something we can all support, and quit whining about procedural details that wouldn't matter a whit if the bill had anything of value to offer. Stop putting up trash and expecting to get 60% to buy off on it. Put up something good and 85% will buy off on it. You think I like paying the equivilent of another house payment for medical insurance and care every month??????? But either of the new plans wasn't going to offer me any relief and worse coverage...so stuff it!!!!!!!

Obama, for his part, knows better. he has taken it off the table "for now"

[mawilson 2,133]

Our system is set up in order to make it difficult to pass laws, it is NOT supposed to be easy. It is supposed to be very difficult and requires really a big majority of our representatives to do. Our constitution is set up on the premise that government gridlock is a GOOD thing.

[luckytxn 2,265]

I remember when the Socialists first took the house and Pelosi said, "we are now in opposition," and no one thought it was wrong to say that. When the so called conservatives try to oppose they are for against hope and change. Hypocrites.

I am laughing now because Obama the Socialist has now tried to 3 times to go and try to help one of his Socialists win and has been rejected each time. They may not have a super majority now but still control everything. With certain procedures they can still pass health care even with a filibuster so they need to get at it if it is so important and what the so called majority of us Americans want. They fail to do so then they are a big time fail. The conservatives failed because they made promises to reign in spending and government and did the opposite. Who knew that the Socialists would spend even more in record amounts? I did.

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

[Ban Hammer 13,657]

uh oh, steven is channeling booyah with a page full of charts!

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

Historically the filibuster has been used to stall progressive change, including the Civil Rights Act of 1957, when Strom Thurmond set a record of 24 hours and 18 minutes of talking a bill to death. Rule 22 of the Senate, governing filibusters, can be changed or eliminated by a simple majority according to the US Supreme Court in U.S. v. Ballin (1892) Senate rules call for 67 to change the cloture rule, but Democrats should be able to rewrite the rules since they control the Rules Committee.

Rule 22 can go out the door all together or be modified. Republicans under Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist threatened to blow up the filibuster in 2005 with far fewer numbers. What are Democrats waiting for?

Burton's voice will help the chorus grow but progressives need to make this is their new cause if they hope to move the ball forward not only on health care but climate change, financial regulation and other key priorities too.

Progressives need to heed the warning of Joe Hill: Don't mourn, organize.

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/politician.../?storyId=31772

uh oh, steven is channeling booyah with a page full of charts!

I'd say you're channeling a troll, but I've known you long enough to know better.

[Ban Hammer 13,657]

I'd say you're channeling a troll, but I've known you long enough to know better.

like aj?