Getting Rid of the Filibuster?

[spartan max2]

Show me in the constitution where filibusters are mentioned. Our government is designed for majority rule. How is it dictatorial when a majority of senators vote on something?

Its designed as a representative democracy. They were actually scared of mob rule. That's why we don't have a direct democracy.

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." Thomas Jefferson

Edited November 24, 2013 by spartan max2

[spacecowboy342]

You mean those rights that the democrats have been trying to kill since I was a kid. Those rights that can now disappear with a simple majority vote. Which may happen if the democrats look like they will lose next year. The same constitution that limits the president to eight years, which obama can now change the rules on with a simple 51-49 vote in the senate.

Obama gets to vote 51 times in the senate? What rights have the dems tried to take away since you were a kid? That's the repubs thing. You know , the party that thinks the 2nd amendment is the only one that the founders really meant.

[RavenHawk]

If this president is a socialist then so was Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon.

Wow, really? Let’s see… Teddy was a big government Republican. Bringing down the Robber Barons was not an act of Socialism. It was putting the breaks on Capitalism gone amok. This was not fundamental change; this was just a course correction. The Robber Barons were the men who built America. They were the ultimate example of American Exceptionalism. They had just got off track a bit.

FDR and his New Deal was the next Socialist President, the first being Wilson. The New Deal was the next peg in the Socialization of America after the passing of the 16th Amendment.

Truman was just a Democrat. He was more responsible than the Progressives. He knew that the buck stopped with him. Socialists do not know that. They’ll spend us into oblivion.

Eisenhower was a military commander and a Republican. That is hardly Socialist. Pushing for the interstate system is not Socialist, it’s public works. Building and maintaining infrastructure is the Constitutional role of Congress.

Kennedy was a Democrat, not a Socialist. When he said that by the end of the decade we would have a man on the moon, it happened. That’s more than being promised that we can keep our insurance. There’s a fundamental difference between being a Democrat and a Socialist. All you have to do is listen to Kennedy speak about the economy.

Yes, Johnson was a Socialist, even though he tried to hide it. The War on Poverty was the next milestone in the Socialist Agenda.

I’m not sure what Nixon was, but he wasn’t a Socialist.

Why don’t you throw in Carter? He was a very bad Socialist. He nearly ruined us domestically and his fiasco of a foreign policy has created critical problems that we are dealing with today.

Clinton was definitely a Socialist but there was nothing he could do while we were riding the Reagan Boom. They had to destroy that first and that task was assigned to Frank and Dodd.

I’m surprised that you didn’t try to say Reagan was a Socialist.

But you can see the slow progression in key events that has lead us from the turn of the 18th Century to witness the most Leftist Socialist President in our history. It’s time to exercise the Socialism from our system before we lose all sense of the Constitution. We can’t afford to have the Right swing too far the other way.

The House has limits on filibusters and somehow democracy survives.

The two Houses are different. And limits are different than elimination. The Senate is where the Filibuster works. If both Houses were meant to operate the same, then why have two separate Houses?

Treason for what exactly?

Have you been paying attention? Like all dictator wannabes, they’ll tell you exactly what they intend to do, but they are so blatant about it that no one believes them. When he said fundamental change, no one believed he meant to dismantle the Constitution. The great lie of Obamacare is the worst lie every told to the American people. It is more disastrous than Teapot Dome, Watergate, Iran-Contra, and Whitewater gate combined.

[spacecowboy342]

Its designed as a representative democracy. They were actually scared of mob rule. That's why we don't have a direct democracy.

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." Thomas Jefferson

Yeah and 51 of our elected senators made this happen not the president. Jefferson said that in support of the bill of rights not filibuster

[RavenHawk]

I'm sure there will still be debate just not obstructionism on every single item

Oh yeah right. Just as long as they do it among themselves in the back of the bus.

[danielost]

The dems have tried and succeeded in removing freedom of speech in parts of the country, the right to bear armes, the right to peaceful assemble, the right to visit the peoples house. The freedom of religion. They are working on freedom of the press. The only freedom I can think of that the republicans have tried to remove is freedom of speech, they failed in that attempt.

[spacecowboy342]

Wow, really? Let's see… Teddy was a big government Republican. Bringing down the Robber Barons was not an act of Socialism. It was putting the breaks on Capitalism gone amok. This was not fundamental change; this was just a course correction. The Robber Barons were the men who built America. They were the ultimate example of American Exceptionalism. They had just got off track a bit.

FDR and his New Deal was the next Socialist President, the first being Wilson. The New Deal was the next peg in the Socialization of America after the passing of the 16th Amendment.

Truman was just a Democrat. He was more responsible than the Progressives. He knew that the buck stopped with him. Socialists do not know that. They'll spend us into oblivion.

Eisenhower was a military commander and a Republican. That is hardly Socialist. Pushing for the interstate system is not Socialist, it's public works. Building and maintaining infrastructure is the Constitutional role of Congress.

Kennedy was a Democrat, not a Socialist. When he said that by the end of the decade we would have a man on the moon, it happened. That's more than being promised that we can keep our insurance. There's a fundamental difference between being a Democrat and a Socialist. All you have to do is listen to Kennedy speak about the economy.

Yes, Johnson was a Socialist, even though he tried to hide it. The War on Poverty was the next milestone in the Socialist Agenda.

I'm not sure what Nixon was, but he wasn't a Socialist.

Why don't you throw in Carter? He was a very bad Socialist. He nearly ruined us domestically and his fiasco of a foreign policy has created critical problems that we are dealing with today.

Clinton was definitely a Socialist but there was nothing he could do while we were riding the Reagan Boom. They had to destroy that first and that task was assigned to Frank and Dodd.

I'm surprised that you didn't try to say Reagan was a Socialist.

But you can see the slow progression in key events that has lead us from the turn of the 18th Century to witness the most Leftist Socialist President in our history. It's time to exercise the Socialism from our system before we lose all sense of the Constitution. We can't afford to have the Right swing too far the other way.

The two Houses are different. And limits are different than elimination. The Senate is where the Filibuster works. If both Houses were meant to operate the same, then why have two separate Houses?

Have you been paying attention? Like all dictator wannabes, they'll tell you exactly what they intend to do, but they are so blatant about it that no one believes them. When he said fundamental change, no one believed he meant to dismantle the Constitution. The great lie of Obamacare is the worst lie every told to the American people. It is more disastrous than Teapot Dome, Watergate, Iran-Contra, and Whitewater gate combined.

Obama is a dem as well not a socialist. You want a lie? How about Bush telling us Saddam was behind 9/11 and had WMD's. I think that got more Americans killed than affordable health care. Christ on a crutch. If Obama was a socialist we would have socialized medicine right now instead of a national version of Romney's health care plan. Is Romney a socialist too? Are everyone but Rand Paul and Ted Cruz socialists?

Oh yeah right. Just as long as they do it among themselves in the back of the bus.

Seriously? C'mon man even for you that's ignorant

[RavenHawk]

Come on man you cant seriously think this is a good thing? Our system tried to set itself up in a way so that 51% of the population cant easily force things on the other 49%.

Actually, it was setup to avoid the extremes of Democracy. That is why we were established as a Republic and not a Democracy. Mob rule is the hallmark of Socialism. It doesn’t matter who the mob is. But now the Socialist Senators have just opened up the path to Anarchy and Totalitarianism. But they fully expect to be the ones in the driver’s seat. They are very short sighted.

[+joc]

Yeah and 51 of our elected senators made this happen not the president. Jefferson said that in support of the bill of rights not filibuster

Filibuster is just a scape-goat SC. The real issue here is much deeper than filibuster. Here is how it can and will go:

Republican: Excuse me I will not yield sir, I still have 2 minutes left.

two minutes later: Mr. President, I move to end debate and go straight to a vote...

President: All in favor say I...all opposed no...the I's have it...roll call...

No debate. This is unprecedented. And what a hypocritical thing to do in the name of filibuster.

It will come back to bite them...but see...here is the thing SC...

...they don't think that it will...because they don't think they can lose the Senate. They are mistaken.

Edited November 24, 2013 by joc

[spacecowboy342]

Filibuster is just a scape-goat SC. The real issue here is much deeper than filibuster. Here is how it can and will go:

Republican: Excuse me I will not yield sir, I still have 2 minutes left.

two minutes later: Mr. President, I move to end debate and go straight to a vote...

President: All in favor say I...all opposed no...the I's have it...roll call...

No debate. This is unprecedented. And what a hypocritical thing to do in the name of filibuster.

It will come back to bite them...but see...here is the thing SC...

...they don't think that it will...because they don't think they can lose the Senate. They are mistaken.

I think you are absolutely correct about that. This is a bonehead play by the dems.

[RavenHawk]

Filibusters are not debate. You worry about the minorities right to thwart the will of the majority. What about the majority's rights. It is called majority rule for a reason.

I think you really need to study what is meant by the “Extremes of Democracy”. The Constitution doesn’t say that legislation will be passed by majority rule. Article I, Sec 1 just says that legislative powers will be invested in Congress. It could be done by cutting cards or throwing darts or anything else. All we have is Article I, Sec 5 to govern that they have at least a quorum. The Founding Fathers felt that that was enough to prevent majority rule from getting out of hand. But I don’t think they really took into consideration that the two parties would be so diametrically opposed. They assumed that both sides would have the best interests of the nation at heart. And it works well when it is aligned that way, but with Socialism destroying the fiber of our system, it is almost impossible to keep mob rule from rearing up. We are in a Constitutional crisis and we are fighting for our very freedom.

[spacecowboy342]

I think you really need to study what is meant by the "Extremes of Democracy". The Constitution doesn't say that legislation will be passed by majority rule. Article I, Sec 1 just says that legislative powers will be invested in Congress. It could be done by cutting cards or throwing darts or anything else. All we have is Article I, Sec 5 to govern that they have at least a quorum. The Founding Fathers felt that that was enough to prevent majority rule from getting out of hand. But I don't think they really took into consideration that the two parties would be so diametrically opposed. They assumed that both sides would have the best interests of the nation at heart. And it works well when it is aligned that way, but with Socialism destroying the fiber of our system, it is almost impossible to keep mob rule from rearing up. We are in a Constitutional crisis and we are fighting for our very freedom.

The constitution also does not say the minority can continually thwart the business of governing the country via the filibuster. It is up to congress to establish the rules of congress. This they have done and it hasn't a thing to do with socialism

[RavenHawk]

Obama is a dem as well not a socialist.

He is a Socialist following in his father’s dream. He’s the most Leftist President we have ever had.

You want a lie? How about Bush telling us Saddam was behind 9/11 and had WMD's.

The lie is what you’ve been told. The implication was that Saddam was involved with al Qaeda. Even though there was a link, Saddam was not behind 9/11. There was a lot of hype. The Bush Administration just didn’t handle it well. Bin Laden had already done his deed. Saddam was always the main focus. And yes, he did have WMD, however the 2003 NIE stepped back on the amounts. The issue was that as long as Saddam was in power, he would always have access to WMD. France was ready to step forward in the UN to lift sanctions because they wanted to use Saddam as a counter to Iran’s nuclear build up. The Bush Administration correctly surmised that we didn’t need another India/Pakistan in the same region. And as usual, Bush stumbled into doing the right thing. This action probably saved millions.

I think that got more Americans killed than affordable health care.

Well, we’ll see won’t we? Well maybe. Obamacare is on life support.

Christ on a crutch. If Obama was a socialist we would have socialized medicine right now instead of a national version of Romney's health care plan.

That’s what Obama is trying to do right now. It’s all been carefully choreographed. And doing things like delaying the employer mandate will assure that it will collapse such that the only solution to *fix it* is single payer. It’s designed that way to discredit our current system.

Is Romney a socialist too? Are everyone but Rand Paul and Ted Cruz socialists?

He’s at least a Rino. But what works for a small state or nation in the short term, quickly degenerates with much larger nations. That is why Socialized medicine will not work here. It’s all about the numbers. The more there are the longer or slower it takes to degrade. It is unsustainable.

Seriously? C'mon man even for you that's ignorant

That’s from Obama’s own mouth. He said something like, “The Republicans can come along but they are going to have to sit in the back of the bus.” Isn’t that right?!

[RavenHawk]

The constitution also does not say the minority can continually thwart the business of governing the country via the filibuster. It is up to congress to establish the rules of congress. This they have done and it hasn't a thing to do with socialism

Well, if this Administration was intent on governing and not community agitation then that would be one thing. But you didn’t listen to what I said. The Constitution was designed for exactly this. To assure that one side can never take control. It says this in the way it was written. It absolutely has everything to do with Socialism. Socialism and the Constitution are completely exclusive to one another. And the fundamental change that Obama talks about is replacing the Constitution with Socialism. That will not happen.

[+DieChecker]

...they don't think that it will...because they don't think they can lose the Senate. They are mistaken.

It is unbelievably short sighted. They will toss the Future to get what they want right Now.

[+DieChecker]

Show me in the constitution where filibusters are mentioned. Our government is designed for majority rule. How is it dictatorial when a majority of senators vote on something?

It is dictatorial when the 49% have no input. Regardless of who has the majority, elimating the voice of the minority is dictatorial.

Perhaps they will "allow" some level of opposition speech, but from what I've read, there is no demand that they allow it... anymore.

[spacecowboy342]

How do the minority manage to have a voice in the house?

And I was under the impression that dictatorial was when one guy made all the rules not when a majority of elected officials do

Edited November 25, 2013 by spacecowboy342

[+DieChecker]

How do the minority manage to have a voice in the house?

Usually they don't. When the Democrats held the Presidency, Senate and House in 2009 and 2010, there was nothing the minority Republicans could really do to stop any legislation. How do you think Obamacare got enacted in the first place?

The main way to prevent the other guys legislation is to simply get enough people elected from your political party to have, or prevent, a Supermajority. At which point the you can either pass what you want at will (supermajority), or can prevent passage of what you don't want (no supermajority due to to many minority seats).

And I was under the impression that dictatorial was when one guy made all the rules not when a majority of elected officials do

I beleive it can be used in a general form to describe the actions of a group, if those actions would fall under what a dictator might do... ie, if the group has absolute power. Technically there are many other names for such groups, but dictatorial fits also.

http://www.merriam-w...ary/dictatorial

Edited November 25, 2013 by DieChecker

[Harte]

Obama is a dem as well not a socialist. You want a lie? How about Bush telling us Saddam was behind 9/11 and had WMD's.

Saddam did have WMDs.

Please present a quote of Bush stating that Saddam "was behind 9/11." It would be helpful to your cause if you could find one where he added "period" to the end of that sentence.

Harte

[questionmark]

Saddam did have WMDs.

Please present a quote of Bush stating that Saddam "was behind 9/11." It would be helpful to your cause if you could find one where he added "period" to the end of that sentence.

Harte

Quite so, we knew 'cause we kept the delivery slip from the Iran/Iraq war time...

The point is much more: Did he have anything usable at the time of the invasion? And if not, how come our overpaid and under-performing spies did not know that?

[ninjadude]

Obama has been the LEAST inclined president in memory to step across the aisle and attempt to work civilly with the opposition - "I WON", remember? Yes the republicans began attempting every method possible to hamstring his plans but only AFTER he totally disregarded them.

And you would be wrong as well. It's amazing the leaps of ignorance of what actually occured.

[ninjadude]

Republican: Excuse me I will not yield sir, I still have 2 minutes left.

two minutes later: Mr. President, I move to end debate and go straight to a vote...

President: All in favor say I...all opposed no...the I's have it...roll call...

You seriously think the president runs the Senate? !!

[ninjadude]

It is unbelievably short sighted. They will toss the Future to get what they want right Now.

As well, the Republicans were short sighted by abusing the filibuster during the Obama administration to hamstring government appointees.

[spartan max2]

to be fair saddam wanted the world to think he had WMDs, when we interviewed different officers of his after taking the place each officer assumed that a different unit had it. That's how much he tryd to get the world to believe it he even tricked his own people

[questionmark]

to be fair saddam wanted the world to think he had WMDs, when we interviewed different officers of his after taking the place each officer assumed that a different unit had it. That's how much he tryd to get the world to believe it he even tricked his own people

Naturally he did, and less to impress his neighbors but to impress his own people, the majority of whom (mainly Shi'ites) would have hung him sooner or later anyway. The state was already in dissolution before the big invasion.

Edited November 25, 2013 by questionmark