-10

The Senate voted Thurs. 11/21/13, to neuter all Republicans in the Senate. Republicans will no longer be able to block, filibuster, or stop any appointee or nomination sent up by our Comandante. Amirite?

There are 55 Democrats and 45 Republican in the Senate. Instead of the 60 votes required before the Nuclear Option's passing on Thurs., now only 51 will be needed. This is a clear example of using force and the power of the majority to thwart law and achieve any means desired. Obama will no longer have to "wait" to see if his nominees will be accepted. They will easily be rammed through without question or scrutiny.
The hypocrisy of it all is that these same Democrats (Reid, Obama, Biden, Clinton, and others) are all on RECORD back in 2005 fighting against a possible Republican consideration of using the same option. Nothing but lying hypocritical bastards - all of them!

Obama in 2005: Nuclear Option will Make Partisanship Worse | The Blog on Obama: White House DossierIn April 2005, when Democrats were blocking a list of Bush nominees and Republicans were threatening to invoke the “nuclear option,” the newly elected junior senator from Illinois, Sen. Barack Obama, took to the floor and sanctimoniously proclaimed that the […]http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2013/11/21/obama-2005-nuclear-option-partisanship-worse/
36%Yeah You Are64%No Way
freespeechfreelancers avatar Politics
Share
0 26
The voters have decided that freespeechfreelancer is wrong! Vote on the post to say if you agree or disagree.

If only you were literal about the neutering...

HopeImrites avatar HopeImrite Yeah You Are +1Reply

I agree with this post but not with this analysis.

1) This filibuster was defeated by mostly senators elected after 2006.

2) Obama has no say (anymore) in senate rules - and likely still opposes this changes - he is a good-old-boy himself - so to blame him seem a stretch.

3) This new breed of ultra-liberal senators is a bizarro-doppelganger of the tea party

4) people have been hoping for (really demanding) sweeping change in our government - now when they get it they cry foul?

5) this is the first step in major remake of the US government and the first nail in the coffin of the good-old-boy's club that has been the senate and the major cause of gridlock in the past 40 years.

Yes this is "bad" but it is not the end, and it will force a series of rule changes that will essentially redo what we have know as the senate for the last 200 years - - and isn't that just what we have been hoping for?
we needed a new way of governing and that could not come without some blood shed.
it will be painful, but every first shot in a revolution is painful, and we have been begging for revolution for a long time.

This is the first step in knocking down the old way of doing business. We must tear down the old structure before we can build a new one.

VicZincs avatar VicZinc Yeah You Are 0Reply
@VicZinc I agree with this post but not with this analysis. 1) This filibuster was defeated by mostly senators elected...

If your analysis is "correct," then why weren't the good ol' boy Dems for the Republicans exercising the same Nuclear Option back in 2005?
And can you honestly continue giving the man behind the curtain a free pass? Especially, knowing full well his own attempts to hide, block, spin, and cover up every damn thing he does? Carney is a bought and paid for liar for the White House - and we can all be sure, Obama is NOT ignorant of the goings on around him. He is the Grand Puppet Master - pulling all the strings.
I NEVER bought in to the HOPE and CHANGE mantra. I saw this man as a snake from the get go, and still do. I have never been one to look up to or follow a leader who expects me to do as they say but not as they do. I knew we were in trouble when the man did not even know how many states there were in the U.S.! That should have raised a few eyebrows.
In my view, the revolution is not being headed by him. He will be the cause of THE PEOPLE turning against his NEW change. This is why the Tea Party has arisen (he called them Tea Baggers) - a movement of Americans who are completely against what he is doing to tear down and strip the country of its heritage.
If Obama had shown us anything that actually worked, it might be worth paying attention to. Unfortunately, he is all talk on jobs and promises. He simply does not deliver. The days of blaming Bush are finally over, and we are still in a massive tail spin. I just heard on a radio finance program today, that the Federal Reserve is cranking out 85 BILLION per month of phony Monopoly money to give the impression that our economy is stable and secure. Both are incorrect. We are building upon a straw or card house by charlatans who have absolutely no concept of turning the ship aright or around.
Tearing down the OLD is only good and wise IF something better is going to be put in its place. Obama and his cronies have proven that they have nothing better than what we have had all along.

@freespeechfreelancer If your analysis is "correct," then why weren't the good ol' boy Dems for the Republicans exercising the same...

Friend, this post seems to be about attempting to blame Obama for the action of the senate, so I shall try to address that first. I think in 2005 the problem of nominations was not as big an issue. Here is the history.

The number of cloture votes on presidential nominees (both executive and judicial) by president, according to data from the Congressional Research Service:
Lyndon Johnson: 1
Richard Nixon: 1
Jimmy Carter: 3
Ronald Reagan: 6
George Bush 41: 1
Bill Clinton: 18
George Bush 43: 38
Barack Obama (through five years): 80-plus

Bottom line: This trend wasn’t going to end. As special interest groups, left and right, have become more sophisticated with their scorecards and their expectations, 60-vote thresholds were going to become impossible. This is not a Dem/Rep thing, it is a campaign contribution thing. Corporation PACS will not donate to candidates that don't vote their way in the cloture. The nuke option eliminates the need for guillotine votes and makes it more difficult for the super rich to control congress through filibuster and cloture.

Now as far as Obama's leadership. yes there are questions, as there are with every president. For me a key part of US gov is the checks and balances. My hat is off to obama for keeping his nose OUT of congresses job, as demonstrated by, for example, his veto policy, fewest since Chester Arthur...

Chester Arthur 4
Grover Cleveland 304
Benjamin Harrison 19
Grover Cleveland 42
William McKinley 6
Theodore Roosevelt 42
William Taft 30
Woodrow Wilson 33
Warren Harding 5
Calvin Coolidge 20
Herbert Hoover 21
Franklin Roosevelt 372
Harry Truman 180
Dwight Eisenhower 73
John Kennedy 12
Lyndon Johnson 16
Richard Nixon 26
Gerald Ford 48
Jimmy Carter 13
Ronald Reagan 39
George H. W. Bush 29
Bill Clinton 36
George W. Bush 11
Barack Obama 2

VicZincs avatar VicZinc Yeah You Are 0Reply
@VicZinc Friend, this post seems to be about attempting to blame Obama for the action of the senate, so I shall try to...

Pretty fair - BUT -
In your first section I would suggest that there is more of a Dem/Rep division going on and the Dems are out to demoralize and even eradicate the Republican party altogether. The media have covered the topic repeatedly, and Obama has made his own comments attacking and belittling any and all efforts to question or slow his direction down. Checks and balances are in place for a REASON, and the historical significance of them is not to suddenly be removed by a group that wants to ramrod its policies or agenda. I agree that special interest groups have become powerful, but Obama said while campaigning that he was going to bust all of that up. In fact, he has pandered and catered to them as much, if not more, than any other president. We both KNOW if Obama were a Republican president doing what he is doing and/or has done since in office, all special interest groups and the media would have crucified him long ago. The Dems would have called for his resignation/impeachment numerous times over.
Surely you would agree that many (if not most) of Obama's nominees or appointees would not be considered moderates or even the slightest bit leaning right on any social or political issues. He ONLY picks people who embrace HIS ideology, which many people (like myself) view as extremely dangerous and counter-American. His choices would clearly fit the category of "radical," which may be a good label depending on what one's agenda really is. America was not conceived or reared in Socialistic ideology, nor are its foundations rooted in Marxist philosophical viewpoints. Though some may argue whether or not we are a "Christian" nation, certainly our foundations point to men and women who acknowledged, believed in, and included God and Bible in almost every decision or process of their lives - including politics.
Obama also campaigned on a ticket of breaking up the big special interest and business donors TO campaigns. Essentially, he was going to be the White Knight riding in to save D.C. and our political process from all its ills. It all sounded good, but has proven to be false and exaggerated. He has actually DONE the very things he said he would be against. He has done them at a higher level and faster rate than other presidents. And he has certainly gotten his way on pretty much everything he has wanted or tried to get - in spite of ANY efforts to block, stall, or restrain him. The media have given him full backing, and he was the "darling" leader that could do no wrong. Even now, in the midst of all the multiplied scandals and secrecy surrounding them, he has the audacity to blame anyone but himself. Business, Banks, the people, the Republicans, the Tea Party, Conservative Talk Radio..........and on and on his blame list goes. Right now he knows that Obamacare is a total sham, yet he presses on. The website has far more than "glitches" or "bug" issues. Testimony by top website designers has just exposed that the website is not even fully completed! Millions and millions have already been sunk in to this disaster, and it STILL is not close to being right. But that is not the point. The point is failed leadership and practices are being treated with dignity and as if they should be the new standard and way of life for America. THAT is the true outrage by people such as myself and those who have always valued our legacy as Americans. To stand by and literally watch a blundering failure tear it all down and piss it away, is simply unacceptable. Americans can't get jobs (which he promised no rest until all were working who wanted to), and the economy is still in a very dismal status. Continuing to listen to or believe a man who has not come through on anything in the past, is a sign of willful ignorance and refusal to see things as they are. He has fooled us not once, not twice, but far too many times to even keep up with. As long as he remains at the helm, the inmates are literally running the asylum.

@freespeechfreelancer Pretty fair - BUT - In your first section I would suggest that there is more of a Dem/Rep division going on and the...

It is interesting to me how perspective can change the view. I honestly must say I disagree with every point you have made here. Not to belabor this discussion I will not respond to each allegation. Suffice to say that I do not see any of the failures you mention and find that he has, with few exception, lived up to my expectations.

I do fault him for failure to close Gitmo and for lack of transparency. I believe he has done a stellar job on the economy despite have a multitude of roadblocks imposed by wrong-thinking conservative economists.

Of course he nominates people who think like him, every president does; we will be saddled with Chief Justice Roberts for probably 3 decades thanks to W.

Seriously, look at this chart and then review the responses to

http://www.amirite.com/774021-w...itical-compass

Image in content

VicZincs avatar VicZinc Yeah You Are 0Reply
@VicZinc It is interesting to me how perspective can change the view. I honestly must say I disagree with every point you...

I am still extremely confused as to how an individual can form opinions or hold views of or about anything who believes nothing. For someone who believes nothing (your own admission), you do in fact, hold very biased and one sided opinions about many things - politics being one of them.

@freespeechfreelancer I am still extremely confused as to how an individual can form opinions or hold views of or about anything who...

Good question. To me having an opinion and believing that I am right are two very different things.

I admit that I am wrong about Obama.

I admit that I do not know (and will never know) if the economy would have been worse or better under Romney.

I admit that I do not read The Blaze and that I find their news and opinions to be counter to my own and I admit that I wrong for thinking this.

However, me being wrong does not make them (or anyone else) right. Someone might be right, but if they were I would never know it. I am incapable of knowing the truth on any matter.

The truth is hidden from me because of my poor eyesight, my restricted hearing, my easily confused sense of smell and taste - but mostly because I am blinded by my prejudices, my frame-of-reference and my fallible human brain. This I am happy to admit, I never know when or if I am right.

I have many opinions and I admit that every single one of them is incorrect and is fed by misguided thoughts and incomplete information.

I cannot ever know the complete truth about anything - that is perhaps the one thing I do believe.
Therefore I choose not to believe anything because my logic and my heart tell me that even if it was true I could never really know for sure. Because I am completely incapable of knowing if/when I am right (unless I "believed it on faith" - and I choose not to do that) I choose to play it safe and not believe anything.

However my current opinion is that Obama is doing a good job and that I am better off now than I would have been had he lost the election. But I cannot know if that is true or not.

My current opinion is that conservative economics is bad and unchristian - and I am sure that I am wrong about that as well because I do not understand every aspect of either theory (economics or christianity). However that is my opinion based on what little I know, which seems to be considerably more than most people I talk to.

VicZincs avatar VicZinc Yeah You Are 0Reply
@VicZinc Good question. To me having an opinion and believing that I am right are two very different things. I...

Fair enough. I just find it almost hard or impossible to debate or even seriously dialogue knowing that the person on the other end ultimately believes nothing. The things you express are clearly held views or opinions, and that can not be so of/about anyone unless certain ideas or thoughts are accepted or endorsed by said thinker.
I totally sympathize with the difficulty of KNOWING anything, since all knowledge is based on our predecessors, but I know many on this sight have no problem accepting the rightness or truth that science offers our world. To endorse or regurgitate any view or finding of the scientific community, is still resting that view, opinion, or ideology on that communities' expertise or knowledge. Most of us will never have live access to the first hand research or tools that discover or verify any findings. This is true in all the world of ideas - including all printed materials.
Essentially, anything we decide to believe or adopt as opinion is based on previously learned, seen, written, spoken things by or from others before us.
The best any of us can do is to take in as much as we can, process it, and form an opinion from what we have been exposed to. And on that basis, at the end of the day, there is no way we can "shoot" the other guy's views down or say he is wrong. We can challenge him with OUR information and leave it at that. Each individual is solely responsible for the outcome of the choices and ideas they chose to believe as real and true.

@VicZinc Friend, this post seems to be about attempting to blame Obama for the action of the senate, so I shall try to...

Don't know if the news sources you follow cover such information as this, but since it fit right in with this vein of discussion, I wanted you to see it. Notice what Obama refers to the Republicans as, AND, and being said in a Democratic public setting. He does not ever put down or belittle his own party. He views the Republicans in the House and Senate as petulent children. And notice how he uses his bully platform and status as America's leader to run around the country raising funds for HIS party. So much for impartiality and bipartisanship.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories...-to-governing/

@freespeechfreelancer Don't know if the news sources you follow cover such information as this, but since it fit right in with this vein...

I am not sure what I am supposed to see here. He seems like any other politician. I would expect no more or less of anyone - fundraising is, sadly, what American politics is all about. Until we have publicly funded campaigns and outlaw ALL private campaign funds we will have politicos who pander to their audiences.

VicZincs avatar VicZinc Yeah You Are 0Reply
This user has deactivated their account.
@1954406

What majority are you referring to? When leadership uses ITS majority to stifle or squash the other side, then absolutely not. The majority of people in our country are FOR certain things and AGAINST certain things right now that this administration (and others) simply don't listen to or give a damn about. Obama gladly cites majority when and only if it agrees with his position. Otherwise, he turns a deaf ear. His bombing healthcare solution being a prime example.
If the actual will of the people were being heard and realized, this country would look very different right now.

@freespeechfreelancer I have yet to talk to anyone who is FOR it!

I guess we associate with different crowds.
The only person I personally knew who is a against it is my uncle-in-law who is considered by the rest of the extended family to be a bit eccentric.

VicZincs avatar VicZinc Yeah You Are +1Reply
@VicZinc I guess we associate with different crowds. The only person I personally knew who is a against it is my...

I live and work in middle class America and around an 85% Hispanic community. Everyone I associate with or talk to is against it - even though Hispanic.

@freespeechfreelancer I live and work in middle class America and around an 85% Hispanic community. Everyone I associate with or talk to...

I assume it is a red state? I live in NY. My uncle in Ohio. I am impressed with what appears to be a consistence of opinion by region and state.

VicZincs avatar VicZinc Yeah You Are 0Reply
@VicZinc I assume it is a red state? I live in NY. My uncle in Ohio. I am impressed with what appears to be a consistence...

I have never named my state, but if you travel due south as far as you can go before crossing the border, that may give you a hint.

@VicZinc I assume it is a red state? I live in NY. My uncle in Ohio. I am impressed with what appears to be a consistence...

Yes, and agreed. Confirms what I have said and hold that the country is pretty much divided right down the middle on most issues. There is no way anyone will change that. If people are conservative, they seem to be wired just opposite of those who are liberal. I too have found it curious - but it seems to be almost genetic.

Just one last thought on this post if I could =>

The Senate voted Thurs. 11/21/13, to neuter themselves. Senators will now be able to more easily end any filibuster intended to block or stop presidential appointments. This will be true regardless of the president's political party.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Amirite?

VicZincs avatar VicZinc Yeah You Are 0Reply
@VicZinc Just one last thought on this post if I could => The Senate voted Thurs. 11/21/13, to neuter themselves...

You know as well as I do that if and when the time should ever come for Republicans to actually use the same process, the Dems will do whatever necessary to block and stop it from occurring. The Dems want their cake and to eat it too. They have always out manipulated the Reps because they fight and play "dirty." That is common knowledge on the streets and in D.C.

@freespeechfreelancer You know as well as I do that if and when the time should ever come for Republicans to actually use the same...

That sort of proves my comment above about red state blue state. Everyone here talks about how the dirty game playing by republicans. Like the perception that the republicans shut down the government over funding for Obamacare. Or that the republicans have challenged every Obama nomination and the Dems let most of Bushes go unchallenged.

VicZincs avatar VicZinc Yeah You Are 0Reply
@VicZinc That sort of proves my comment above about red state blue state. Everyone here talks about how the dirty game...

I don't believe the Reps did it at all. The Dems did the whole thing by refusing to give in to anything that was offered by Reps. All that has to happen is Harry Reid NOT bringing any bill or legislation passed by the House to the floor of the Senate for a vote. Reid does that very often, which makes everything LOOK like the Reps are to blame - when in fact, the Dems are being bratty sulky spoiled children who want everything to go their way or nothing. Obama even said himself, he would NOT negotiate. It was fund everything completely or no deal. That is extremely lop sided and partial.

@VicZinc Just one last thought on this post if I could => The Senate voted Thurs. 11/21/13, to neuter themselves...

The same is true of name calling. The Dems get by with calling any conservative whatever they wish - almost always with zero recourse or media smearing. But let one Rep or conservative call a Dem a name or ugly reference, and all hell breaks loose. Special interest groups band together with the fury of liberal media, and that person is generally forced in to an apology and to resign. It is a clear and definite pattern that I have observed time and time again. Case in point: Martin Bashir's (MSNBC) foul mouthed attack against Sarah Palin. Whether one likes or agrees with Sarah Palin about anything, does not give them grounds to say on national television in a reporter's position that she should be forced to eat feces!
I know Martin has apologized, but only because of the outrage and pressure received. MSNBC gets by with way too much name calling on a regular basis. And all this from those who say they are tolerant and seeking peace for all.

Please   login   or signup   to leave a comment.