The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: Carl on January 19, 2010, 07:48:10 AM
-
http://www.democraticunderground.com//discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7499697&mesg_id=7499697
edhopper (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-18-10 06:29 PM
Original message
We win a massive victory last November. And if Brown wins tomorrow
Advertisements [?]
we get nothing. No HCR, no financial regulation, no climate bill...
Overwhelming majority in both houses. A President with a giant mandate to reverse what conservatives have done.
And after a year, nothing. And after tomorrow, less than nothing.
I am heartsick about what will become of this nation.
I don't know what the outcome tomorrow will be, I'm just saying that if, which looks likely.
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
defendandprotect (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-18-10 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. What we need are more humanists in government...less corporatists ...
Edited on Mon Jan-18-10 06:35 PM by defendandprotect
and unfortunately, too many corporatists now come not only with an "R" after
their name -- but, sadly, too many with a "D" after their name.
We need to resurrect FDR's New Deal --- maybe Howard Dean is the one to do it??
Pretty much everything we need is there -- including the fact that it was PRE-CIA
and the national security laws which are so screwing up this country!
Huh?
Webster Green (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-18-10 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #4
14. The chimp and his thugs only needed 51 votes.
For some weird ****ing reason, we need 60 for everything.
The playing field isn't level, and the other team has a different set of rules that always favors them.
We're basically ****ed!
Probably because the public supported his agenda more then not...same reason you are in trouble today.
defendandprotect (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-18-10 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #14
26. Ah, well, that's the magic of the GOP .... they cried out for help against "filibuster" threats
by Dems -- and meanwhile Dems were even too timid to actually pull a filibuster!!
Who would believe any of this --???
Let's recap . . . . when Dems are in power -- the GOP controls events --
When GOP is minority -- the GOP controls events --
When Dems are in minority -- they are put in the basement --
When GOP is majority -- they get EVERYTHING THEY WANT!!!
Got it?
Anything wrong there?
Either GOP is omnipotent or the Dems are selling us out for corporate interests --
which is it?
:evillaugh:
JVS (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-18-10 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #9
29. A smart man like Obama shouldn't have had to learn that by experience.
:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:
depakid (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-18-10 08:34 PM
Response to Original message
39. Gee- funny how Republicans were able to get almost EVERYTHING they wanted- with far less
Edited on Mon Jan-18-10 08:35 PM by depakid
even when what they wanted was unpopular- sometimes profoundly so.
Seems to me that there's something wrong with that picture.
Such as?
-
A President with a giant mandate to reverse what conservatives have done.
Where did you pull that out of, ed? A giant mandate at 52%? Really?
By definition, conservatives don't go mowing through the nation, putting all kinds of new laws, rules & taxes in effect by fiat. We just want the constitution to be our guide.
-
Webster Green (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-18-10 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #4
14. The chimp and his thugs only needed 51 votes.
For some weird ****ing reason, we need 60 for everything.
The playing field isn't level, and the other team has a different set of rules that always favors them.
We're basically ****ed!
The Noah Webster primitive apparently doesn't know shit about politics and governance.
The same rules applied for George Bush and the Republicans as currently apply for il Duce Bo and the Democrats.
The Republicans, when in power being magnanimously bipartisan, didn't make things so that 60 votes were needed.
The Democrats, by their rigid unwillingness to compromise, to accomodate, make things so that 60 votes are needed.
The rules are exactly the same.
-
The Noah Webster primitive apparently doesn't know shit about politics and governance.
The same rules applied for George Bush and the Republicans as currently apply for il Duce Bo and the Democrats.
The Republicans, when in power being magnanimously bipartisan, didn't make things so that 60 votes were needed.
The Democrats, by their rigid unwillingness to compromise, to accomodate, make things so that 60 votes are needed.
The rules are exactly the same.
Frank
You are quite correct but if ones posts this on the dump,he/she/it will need the Marines from Haiti to dig them from under the dumps doo-doo
-
You are quite correct but if ones posts this on the dump,he/she/it will need the Marines from Haiti to dig them from under the dumps doo-doo
My point being, sir, if the Republicans when in control of the Senate had been as uncompromising, as intransigent, as unyielding, as the Democrats are while in control of the Senate, the Republicans would've needed 60 votes too.
And vice versa; if the Democrats while in control of the Senate were as willing to compromise, were as willing to give-and-take, as the Republicans were when in control of the Senate, the Democrats would need only 51 votes too.
The long-established rules haven't changed.
-
I used to misassume the Noah Webster primitive was part of the intelligentsia, such as it is, on Skins's island.
Does anybody happen to know if perhaps the Noah Webster primitive isn't very bright?
-
I used to misassume the Noah Webster primitive was part of the intelligentsia, such as it is, on Skins's island.
Does anybody happen to know if perhaps the Noah Webster primitive isn't very bright?
I would say that based on his lack of understanding of politics that he isn`t very bright.
For some reason they seem to think that the (D) behind a politicians name should automatically mean that person is one step sideways of communism.
Not sure why that is.
-
Yeah, you won a big "victory" a little over a year ago and you lost out a year later when a Republican governor won in Va by a landslide and now a Republican is about to take a Dem seat in the most liberal state in the country....
Here's a hot cup of Wake the F*ck Up :fuelfire:
-
My point being, sir, if the Republicans when in control of the Senate had been as uncompromising, as intransigent, as unyielding, as the Democrats are while in control of the Senate, the Republicans would've needed 60 votes too.
And vice versa; if the Democrats while in control of the Senate were as willing to compromise, were as willing to give-and-take, as the Republicans were when in control of the Senate, the Democrats would need only 51 votes too.
The long-established rules haven't changed.
Frank, knowing your desire for precision and accuracy, I would point out that the majority party in each house does change the procedural rules from time to time and especially when the majority changes hands. Although the big features like filibuster and basic idea of the conference committees remain, other less-visible parliamentary details were changed to give the new majority Democrats greater advantages in the House after 2006, and in the Senate after 2008, so that the GOP could not recycle the same tactics minority Dems had used against the old leadership.
-
Frank, knowing your desire for precision and accuracy, I would point out that the majority party in each house does change the procedural rules from time to time and especially when the majority changes hands. Although the big features like filibuster and basic idea of the conference committees remain, other less-visible parliamentary details were changed to give the new majority Democrats greater advantages in the House after 2006, and in the Senate after 2008, so that the GOP could not recycle the same tactics minority Dems had used against the old leadership.
Well, yeah, sure, I was aware that minor rules and maybe even some not-so-minor rules are changed occasionally, I was under the impression that the rules on filibusters hadn't changed.
Your point above, in bold, is meant for the illumination of lurking primitives.