This is the alternative, folks.

S

speedracer

Banned
There was an exchange a little while back where I think most of us agreed that sitting on nominees was a really shit thing to do unless the nominee was heinously unqualified.

A couple of days ago, Senator Shelby from Alabama anonymously put a hold on 70 (!!!) Obama nominees because Obama killed some of Shelby's pork. Harry Reid then named Shelby as the one doing it. 70 is such a comically gigantic number that the spokesman for Republican Senate Minority Leader McConnell actually questioned the validity of the story. When the number was confirmed, McConnell and his spokesman refused comment and referred questions to Shelby.

Realizing he was about to catch some shit, Shelby went on the offensive. He went on Alabama television and straight up said that Obama was biased against Alabama. Then when that didn't seem to work and with national outlets starting to run the story, the spokesman now says that "Sen. Shelby has placed holds on several pending nominees due to unaddressed national security concerns". Yep. Hide behind terrorism. You don't have to have been there to know exactly how that message strategy meeting went.

It's over a defense earmark for a couple of billion dollars and an earmark for a $45 million FBI lab. It's over pork (defense spending pork, the best kind) worth billions, it's obstructionism so absurd even insiders didn't believe it, and the Republican leadership refuses to comment much less do something about because Shelby is a pretty powerful guy.

Let's stop pretending Republicans have rediscovered their sound fiscal policy bearings. I'm curious to see if the Tea Party/Conservative media/Republican leadership will move on this.
 
Conservative Republicans are on a jihad against a functioning government, been that way for decades.

Maybe people will start to wake the fuck up now.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I wouldn't attack the messenger Msut77. I don't agree with anything perdition says but its just an AFP article that Breitbart linked to. Unless you were referring to the obama/bush attack, that was bait.
 
Speed, I was going to make a thread about this and you beat me to it. I made a thread some time ago detailing some of the idiotic holds that Senator Kyl (R-AZ) was placing on Treasury nominees. Of course, this tops that by some distance. Kyl's holds were bullshit, but these are even worse because (1) it's a blanket hold on every Obama nominee; and (2) it's over some stupid pork-barrel crap that Shelby is after and not even remotely related to policy, much less any claim nominees are unfit for the office they were nominated for.

I read on a left-leaning site that they should take away all Shelby's earmarks in retaliation. I'm in full agreement.
 
I found this out recently but 'putting a hold' on nominees is one of the shittiest concepts in the Senate. ANYONE can do it, and they can do it ANONYMOUSLY. And they don't even have to have a reason. All it takes is one douche.

They don't even want to DEBATE the issues, they're just saying no. It's wrong when Democrats do it, it's wrong when Republicans do it.
 
[quote name='IRHari']I found this out recently but 'putting a hold' on nominees is one of the shittiest concepts in the Senate. ANYONE can do it, and they can do it ANONYMOUSLY. And they don't even have to have a reason. All it takes is one douche.

They don't even want to DEBATE the issues, they're just saying no. It's wrong when Democrats do it, it's wrong when Republicans do it.[/QUOTE]

Yeah. Even a proposal to end "anonymous" holds (merely by releasing the name of the senator who placed a hold) a few years ago, I think by Tom Coburn, went nowhere. Even that would be an improvement. If you're going to hold something up, fucking man up to it.
 
I'm not sure why you believe *this* is the alternative.

Unless you're stuck in the 3rd parties are a waste of my vote mindset.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I'm not sure why you believe *this* is the alternative.

Unless you're stuck in the 3rd parties are a waste of my vote mindset.[/QUOTE]
Third parties aren't allowed to win.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Third parties aren't allowed to win.[/QUOTE]

simpsons20.jpg


Okay, honestly, I was really looking for a picture of Ross Perot from the same episode but couldn't find it.
 
Reading the comment on that Breitbart link troy posted emphasizes my cynicism, because it reinforces that people respond to the political actors' alliances, not their actions or motives. People are largely cheering on Shelby in this case - and Breitbart's a plenty right-leaning website, so naturally you'd have that concentration of opinions.

Time for recess appointments, methinks. Those are still available if a hold is placed on a nominee, right? Like in John Bolton's case, I think.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Reading the comment on that Breitbart link troy posted emphasizes my cynicism, because it reinforces that people respond to the political actors' alliances, not their actions or motives. People are largely cheering on Shelby in this case - and Breitbart's a plenty right-leaning website, so naturally you'd have that concentration of opinions.

Time for recess appointments, methinks. Those are still available if a hold is placed on a nominee, right? Like in John Bolton's case, I think.[/QUOTE]

Sure, Obama could do a recess appointment just about whenever he wants, because Congress is in recess fairly often. They have one coming up in another week as well.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']
simpsons20.jpg


Okay, honestly, I was really looking for a picture of Ross Perot from the same episode but couldn't find it.[/QUOTE]
"Go ahead! THROW YOUR VOTE AWAY!"
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Sure, Obama could do a recess appointment just about whenever he wants, because Congress is in recess fairly often. They have one coming up in another week as well.[/QUOTE]

What I'm asking is if appointments can be made in spite of holds. I have no idea if that's possible (or, rather, if that's exactly what they're used for).
 
For real though I support Shelby 100% about the tanker deal, it's fucking nuts that we're gonna send tens of billions of American taxpayer dollars to a europeon company when we have a company right here at home that could do a better job... seriously, it's just fucking nuts, they should go with boeing and if shelby would come right out and claim that to be the reason behind his action i wouldn't even really complain, because he'd just be using a move of desperation to achieve what needed to be done (preventing tens of billions of $USD from going overseas)...

but yeah everyone's a jerk, fine.
 
[quote name='Koggit']For real though I support Shelby 100% about the tanker deal, it's fucking nuts that we're gonna send tens of billions of American taxpayer dollars to a europeon company when we have a company right here at home that could do a better job... seriously, it's just fucking nuts, they should go with boeing and if shelby would come right out and claim that to be the reason behind his action i wouldn't even really complain, because he'd just be using a move of desperation to achieve what needed to be done (preventing tens of billions of $USD from going overseas)...

but yeah everyone's a jerk, fine.[/QUOTE]

We outsource trillions of dollars per year. Why are these billions special?
 
[quote name='Koggit']For real though I support Shelby 100% about the tanker deal, it's fucking nuts that we're gonna send tens of billions of American taxpayer dollars to a europeon company when we have a company right here at home that could do a better job... seriously, it's just fucking nuts, they should go with boeing and if shelby would come right out and claim that to be the reason behind his action i wouldn't even really complain, because he'd just be using a move of desperation to achieve what needed to be done (preventing tens of billions of $USD from going overseas)...[/QUOTE]
You got it backwards. Shelby is claiming that the government is trying to steer the contract to Boeing. Shelby represents Northrop and the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company.
The European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company and its rival Boeing have been locked in a long-running rivalry to win a 35-billion-dollar contract for a fleet of new aerial refueling tankers.

The EADS/Northrop partnership would build the airplane in Shelby's home state of Alabama but have accused the Pentagon of favoring Boeing in a draft request for proposal and warned they may withdraw from the competition.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']We outsource trillions of dollars per year. Why are these billions special?[/QUOTE]

yeah hey 100,000 americans are murdered every year what's so wrong with killing a few thousand more? why's everyone make such a big deal about 9/11? 2,000 lives are just a drop in the bucket, right?


look, taxpayer dollars should not go to an overseas company when there's an extremely viable domestic option, end of fucking story

[quote name='speedracer']You got it backwards. Shelby is claiming that the government is trying to steer the contract to Boeing. Shelby represents Northrop and the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company.[/QUOTE]

oh well fuck him then, when i read he was pissed about the tanker deal i just assumed he was on the rational side, my mistake
 
[quote name='mykevermin']What I'm asking is if appointments can be made in spite of holds. I have no idea if that's possible (or, rather, if that's exactly what they're used for).[/QUOTE]

He can do it even if there are holds. "Holds" are something that is a Senate procedure designed as a courtesy in a time that was more, well, "senatorial," that has gotten out of hand. Some would argue the same applies to the filibuster, which already was reduced from 67 to 60 Senators to end in the '80s IIRC.
 
Proper filibustering procedure requires, if I'm properly understanding it, a minimum of 40 Senators *on the floor* at all times during the filibuster - 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" style and all that.

I'd be totally fine if that was reintroduced as a necessary part of the filibuster. As currently practiced, it's just commonly agreed on that there's a stalemate and no sweat or effort involved. Make 'em get out that phonebook at start reading, I say.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Proper filibustering procedure requires, if I'm properly understanding it, a minimum of 40 Senators *on the floor* at all times during the filibuster - 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" style and all that.[/quote]

I am pretty sure they aren't required to do that anymore or if you can even force them to do it.

They merely have to signal they want to filibuster.
 
I also read the comments and I'm floored at how many people just go "Republican Yeah! Stick it to obozo."

We should just start handing out big foam #1 fingers and get over with it. The average American knows more about Cover 2 defense than what their elected representatives really do. Let them root on their favorite political party like they root on their favorite football team.
 
[quote name='Koggit']yeah hey 100,000 americans are murdered every year what's so wrong with killing a few thousand more? why's everyone make such a big deal about 9/11? 2,000 lives are just a drop in the bucket, right?


look, taxpayer dollars should not go to an overseas company when there's an extremely viable domestic option, end of fucking story[/QUOTE]

Yeah, we need those tankers real bad. If we didn't have them, the range of our bombers might be reduced. How would we bomb those dirty Muslims then and piss away $700 billion a year?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Proper filibustering procedure requires, if I'm properly understanding it, a minimum of 40 Senators *on the floor* at all times during the filibuster - 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" style and all that.

I'd be totally fine if that was reintroduced as a necessary part of the filibuster. As currently practiced, it's just commonly agreed on that there's a stalemate and no sweat or effort involved. Make 'em get out that phonebook at start reading, I say.[/QUOTE]

Agreed that the threat of a filibuster currently equaling a filibuster is a bad formula, and one that encourages obstructionism at every turn because it's so easy.
 
[quote name='Koggit']For real though I support Shelby 100% about the tanker deal, it's fucking nuts that we're gonna send tens of billions of American taxpayer dollars to a europeon company when we have a company right here at home that could do a better job... seriously, it's just fucking nuts, they should go with boeing and if shelby would come right out and claim that to be the reason behind his action i wouldn't even really complain, because he'd just be using a move of desperation to achieve what needed to be done (preventing tens of billions of $USD from going overseas)...

but yeah everyone's a jerk, fine.[/QUOTE]

I'm with you on this one. Its an economic crisis right? Why not FORCE as much money back into the economy as you can? And oh my god, a way to do it without printing money?! Amazing!

Then again, I am a raging republican because I support things that are good for our economy, such as tariffs on products being imported, and giving incentives for companies to say in the U.S. and quit out sourcing everything to foreign nations and fattening the wallets of their big-wig CEOs/owners.

[quote name='Msut77']Conservative Republicans are on a jihad against a functioning government, been that way for decades.

Maybe people will start to wake the up now.[/QUOTE]

Doubtful, we have people like you who blame a single political party for the world's problems. If people woke up, then every member of congress, the judicial branch and executive branch would be thrown out and the nation would probably split into smaller nations.

Good job on being a narrow minded asshole.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Since when do Republicans support class war?[/QUOTE]

I'm 90% sure they don't, I was just making it a point that I am constantly classified as a raging republican, regardless of what party I actually align myself with (which is none), because I have fiscal ideals similar to conservatives and I dislike the current administration; though, in my defense I have disliked every administration.
 
[quote name='Zodiii']Doubtful, we have people like you who blame a single political party for the world's problems. If people woke up, then every member of congress, the judicial branch and executive branch would be thrown out and the nation would probably split into smaller nations.[/quote]
Msut regularly shits on the Democrats. And a major rallying cry (see Grover Norquist, Ronald Reagan, Bush II) being that the government destroys everything it touches, well, I don't think he comment is out of line. What you think does not invalidate what they've done.

I was at a closed door speech given to about 25 people by Mr. Norquist in 2004. He said he would love to see the deficit soar as a means of severely curtailing government. His position was the only way to scale back government was to actively encourage poor governance, thereby "proving" government is bad and must be scaled back.

I looked around at the end of 2008 and thought he sure won the war.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Msut regularly shits on the Democrats. And a major rallying cry (see Grover Norquist, Ronald Reagan, Bush II) being that the government destroys everything it touches, well, I don't think he comment is out of line. What you think does not invalidate what they've done.

I was at a closed door speech given to about 25 people by Mr. Norquist in 2004. He said he would love to see the deficit soar as a means of severely curtailing government. His position was the only way to scale back government was to actively encourage poor governance, thereby "proving" government is bad and must be scaled back.

I looked around at the end of 2008 and thought he sure won the war.[/QUOTE]

It definitely does not invalidate anything, I will be the first to agree that the Reps are complete freaking morons, and are generally funneling money into the pockets of their friends in large corporations. But I also think the Dems, and every other political leader does basically the same thing.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Since when do Republicans support class war?[/QUOTE]

It's more just actions with them, compared to words and actions with Democrats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top