Subverting the deliberative process - thanks, Dems.

Republicans force a delay of EVERY. SINGLE. BILL. and then complain that Dems are forcing them back into session.

Our tiny violin plays for thee.
 
What's supposed to be the controversy here? Washington is working overtime? I thought it was a popular criticism among the right to say they vacation too much.

Now, I understand that if the right had their way, Congress would have ended its session on election day 2010 and not reconvened for anything until the hyper-reactionary-right tea party dumbfucks came into office. But if that's what you want to argue, don't be so shameless about it.

That's what this WSJ op-ed is about: "don't let the democrats pass legislation, we're an anarchist newspaper who only support those on the right, and since that's on the horizon, everybody just chill out now."

WSJ: We're like Fox News for people who can form half a sentence.
 
@ speedracer - no, I think the complaint is the timing of the introduction of all of this legislation without proper time to read it, let alone debate it. If that's okay with you, you expect a lot less from our elected officials than most do. I would hope that these hacks would read, understand, and vigorously debate the merit of practically any legislation, much less stuff like this.

@myke - Thanks for the entirely-predictable dismissive/vitriolic diatribe. It is upsetting that I didn't get a few more "fuck" s and a female-bent nickname out of you. You must be slipping?

Anyway, back to the topic at hand - I would prefer this sweeping bunch of legislation be properly read and debated rather than the majority using scheduling and procedural trickery. Can anyone honestly argue against that?
 
[quote name='Don Chubo']@ speedracer - no, I think the complaint is the timing of the introduction of all of this legislation without proper time to read it, let alone debate it. If that's okay with you, you expect a lot less from our elected officials than most do. I would hope that these hacks would read, understand, and vigorously debate the merit of practically any legislation, much less stuff like this.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand - I would prefer this sweeping bunch of legislation be properly read and debated rather than the majority using scheduling and procedural trickery. Can anyone honestly argue against that?[/QUOTE]
Normally I would agree with, I seriously would. But there are no surprises in any of these bills. They have been crafted for a long time. They have been talked about for a long time. We're not at this point in time because Democrats are refusing to share their toys. We're here because Republicans are being complete and utter shitbags about allowing votes.
 
[quote name='Clak']You think politicians read every page of legislation they vote on? :rofl:[/QUOTE]

No, I know they don't. But they ought to. Maybe if legislation was truly transparent and went through a thorough deliberative process right out in front of the eyes of constituents, maybe a lot of the garbage that is voted on wouldn't see the light of day. I understand, perfect world and all....
 
You think most Americans care to read a bill? Most people in this country don't give a fuck about what goes on in the government as long as their taxes don't increase.
 
[quote name='Clak']You think most Americans care to read a bill? Most people in this country don't give a fuck about what goes on in the government as long as their taxes don't increase.[/QUOTE]

I don't know whether they do or not. That doesn't have anything to do with the point I'm making.
 
[quote name='Don Chubo']No, I know they don't. But they ought to. Maybe if legislation was truly transparent and went through a thorough deliberative process right out in front of the eyes of constituents, maybe a lot of the garbage that is voted on wouldn't see the light of day. I understand, perfect world and all....[/QUOTE]
Before I start trolling you, why do you think this is. There are actually many various reasons for this that are highly substantiated. Let's see if you can hit one of the dozen options you have. Ready. Set. GO!
 
How much do we need to talk about DADT? Or the Dream Act? I can see the Omnibus, but virtually no other bill on the docket, which makes the cries kind of ring hollow.
 
where does one even find a box of dicks if they were so driven to consume such a thing? And why a box? Why not a bowl, or perhaps even a bucket?

Also, given that a box is slang for vag, isn't that basically like saying "go eat some pussy"?
 
I introduce legislation on the floor for proper dick storage and transportive methods.

I am current pro-box. I am anti-burlap sack. I am for taxing elitist dick holding leather briefcases, which I like to call dickatchels.
 
I move that dicksters not be considered in this bill. They were not born that way - it was their choice. I also have it on good authority that God hates dicksters, and centuries old written text to support this claim, written right around the time people still thought the sun revolved around the flat Earth. "Don't Acknowledge Dickster Tactics" - or DADT - is to be in full effect.

I'm moving all of this discussion to a new thread.
 
I have no respect for this article. This person does not even know what is or isn't in the Constitution. He dislikes what Reid is doing and is crying foul whilst using the Constitution, which does not defend what he says. I am surprised he didn't attack via the Christmas is for Christians not legislation defense.
 
[quote name='Don Chubo']Can anyone honestly argue against that?[/QUOTE]

Yes, precisely because you're well aware of the stall tactics and blocking of damn near every bit of legislation to hit the floor this session. Judicial nominees held up for no reason, breaking the record by a country mile with the use of the filibuster - shit ain't getting done, and it's because of the Republicans.

These bills, same for the omnibus, contain few surprises. I understand you want the Democrats to roll over and die, but I understand they want to get shit done.

Honestly, what's shocking about this? There's nothing surprising here, to me. Republicans exploit Senate rules to make 40 the new 51, and now you're upset that the Democratic majority is going forward with legislation as a response to the very blocks put in place?

Forgive me for suggesting such a controversial claim, but I like 51 being 51, and not 40.
 
[quote name='Don Chubo']I don't know whether they do or not. That doesn't have anything to do with the point I'm making.[/QUOTE]
You want things to be transparent and open to the public, correct? I'm saying the public doesn't really give a fuck.
 
Check this POS story out.
Democrats controlling the Senate abandoned on Thursday a huge catchall spending measure combining nearly $1.3 trillion worth of unfinished budget work, including another $158 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The 1,924-page bill collapsed of its own weight after an outcry from conservatives who complained it was stuffed with more than $8 billion in homestate pet projects known as earmarks.
Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., gave up on the bill after several Republicans who had been thinking of voting for it pulled back their support.
GOP leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky threw his weight against the bill in recent days, saying it was "unbelievable" that Democrats would try to muscle through in the days before Christmas legislation that usually takes months to debate.

"Just a few weeks after the voters told us they don't want us rushing major pieces of complicated, costly, far-reaching legislation through Congress, we get this," McConnell said. "This is no way to legislate."
Click to expand...
You tell em McConnell! Stand up for what's right! Those goddamn Dems trying to ram it down our throats without any input or voice whatsoever! Who the hell hates America enough to have supported this awful omnibus bill?
McConnell had earlier quietly backed the effort to produce the legislation, which had significant input from Republicans on the Appropriations panel.

But release of the bill on Tuesday sparked an outcry among the GOP's conservative political base. Senate Republicans held two combative closed-door meetings in which the rank-and-file turned up the heat on those few Republicans who were considering voting for the bill.
Click to expand...
facepalm.jpg

For those keeping score at home, McConnell is currently the highest ranking elected Republican in America.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101217/ap_on_bi_ge/us_congress_spending
 
The Dem side of the story:
After long deliberations with Republican principals Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced on the Senate floor that nine GOP members had reneged on their pledges to vote for the omnibus spending bill, which reflected months of bipartisan negotiations, and included earmarks benefiting both parties.

That left Reid several votes shy of the 60 he'd need to overcome a filibuster and essentially vaporized a year's worth of work by the Appropriations Committee.

Democrats on the floor -- including Appropriations Chairman Daniel Inouye -- were visibly wounded by the development, and were unable to contain their anger after Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell rubbed in the salt. "There is only one reason cloture is not being filed," McConnell said. "They don't have the votes. And the reason he doesn't have the votes is because members on [the Republican] side of the aisle increasingly felt concerned about the way we do business."

Durbin barked under his breath at McConnell, but ultimately vented his frustrations through Reid. "I would like to ask the Majority Leader, does he recall the time when I returned from the Appropriations Committee and said that Senator McConnell had come to the committee and said that he was going to establish the maximum amount that he would vote for in all the appropriations bill...$1.108 trillion?" said Durbin in a veiled accusation of hypocrisy. "And I said to the Majority Leader, I think ultimately that's what we're going to be voting for is Senator McConnell's number?"

Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) weighed in. "We had to cut the money to meet the [Republican] level...and that's what we have before us and that's what we're being told, after a year's worth of work, that somehow we don't have the capability of knowing what's in this bill."
Click to expand...
 
From a strategic standpoint, it seems odd to pull the bill, though.

They can't say the Republicans filibustered or blocked the bill, and they'd be semantically correct. There were no motions to debate or vote on the bill, and therefore no block. Why not put the bill up and make the Republicans go on record as the obstructionists they have been?

Reid's "roll over and die" strategy of capitulating to the interest of the anarchist oligarch overlords on the right has brought his party and our nation nothing but horror.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']From a strategic standpoint, it seems odd to pull the bill, though.

They can't say the Republicans filibustered or blocked the bill, and they'd be semantically correct. There were no motions to debate or vote on the bill, and therefore no block. Why not put the bill up and make the Republicans go on record as the obstructionists they have been?[/QUOTE]
Dems got 2 choices. Let Republicans go all Fox News outrage and totally control the cycle for the rest of the session, or let it go and vote on two other bills they've been fighting for.

They've got the votes for DADT and are really close on the Dream Act. That's a trade worth making in my book.

By votes, of course I mean they have at least 60.
 
And I know everyone hates omnibus bills for some reason. But there's a good side to them. Not only do they lay out funding for the feds for the next year, but they cut funding to dead/end of life projects as well. Killing the omnibus means funding will remain at current levels until it is passed in the future. And every single federal government project on the chopping block will continue to get funding.
 
[quote name='Clak']:rofl: There goes the whining about Christians being disrespected.[/QUOTE]

I am getting a half week off of work, I should tell everyone how disrespected they are for not getting the whole week.
 
I eagerly await the WSJ editorial about this.
Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) signaled Sunday night that he would move ahead with a vote on the treaty despite Republicans' complaints about a lack of time. Reid filed a motion for cloture, which will probably lead to a final vote between Tuesday and Thursday.

McConnell told CNN that he still has concerns about the treaty's verification provisions and about a few phrases in the document regarding missile defense. But above all, he appeared angry that the pact is being debated in the final days of the session, against the wishes of top Republicans, who have pressed to have the vote moved to February.

"I don't think this is the best time to be doing this. Members are uneasy about it, don't feel thoroughly familiar with it," he said. "We'd have been a lot better off to take our time."

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), whom the White House had hoped would support the treaty, also sounded a negative note.

"If you really want to have a chance of passing START, you better start over and do it in the next Congress, because this lame duck has been poisoned," he said Sunday on CBS's "Face the Nation."

Graham echoed Republican concerns that Democrats had pursued "special-interest politics" in the lame-duck session - such as passing the bill allowing gays to serve openly in the military - instead of providing more time to debate the treaty.

Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), who is leading the effort to pass the pact, responded that plenty of time had been allotted to consider the pact, which has been public since spring.

"We are looking at having more days of debate on this treaty than START I, START II and the Moscow Treaty all put together," he said in a speech, referring to arms control treaties from the past two decades.
Click to expand...
START has been on the board for 9 goddamn months. But man, it feels like we've been here before huh? Lil deja vu? The headline from August 2nd, 4 goddamn months ago:
Senate Republicans ask: What’s the hurry on the new START treaty?
Click to expand...
http://blogs.reuters.com/frontrow/2...-ask-whats-the-hurry-on-the-new-start-treaty/

So what has happened between then and now? Why is Kyl sitting on it?
Kyl is pushing the administration to modernize the U.S. nuclear weapons complex. The White House has proposed spending over $80 billion to do this over the next ten years. But McConnell suggested that some evidence of the administration’s commitment will need to be written into appropriations bills pending in Congress to convince Kyl.

“All they have to do is find enough money to satisfy Senator Kyl that they are prepared to do what they said they would do,” he said. “If it’s important to you, you can find a way, in an over a trillion dollar discretionary budget to fund it. In my view they need to do that, because without that I think the chances of ratification are pretty slim,” McConnell said.
Click to expand...
They have to earmark $80 billion to Kyl.

If only there was a group of people that gave a shit about such things. And to bring this thing full idiot, McConnell mentions a discretionary budget. He's referring to the omnibus that Republicans just filibustered. Talking about this in August, 4 months ago. And the reason for the thread is because Republicans don't have enough time.

Is there any shit they shovel that people won't eat?
 
A party that has held up the legislative process for two years is not allowed the righteous indignation of having to work later in the year than normal.
 
Scheduling and procedural trickery? Republicans invented that shit, the term 'Vampire Congress' was coined by DeLay & Dreier's tactics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top