Republicans: We Will NOT Tolerate blocking Bush's Nominees, The End of Fillibusters?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Thus, if the Republicans who have the majority in the Senate blocked a nominee at the committee level they do so because they have a majority vote on the committee.

It doesn't matter, because they weren't voted down by majority, but vetoed by single Senators. This point has been made several times now, and you have contuniously ignored it and continued blathering about majority votes. I suspect you will ignore this post as well.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
By expelling one of the worst dictators since Hitler,

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


It doesn't matter, because they weren't voted down by majority, but vetoed by single Senators. This point has been made several times now, and you have contuniously ignored it and continued blathering about majority votes. I suspect you will ignore this post as well.

Che, if this is in fact what occurred, then it is a filibuster by the individual Senators, whoever they are. I hope you would join me in saying this practice is wrong despite which party started it.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

You like Saddam Hussein? You would relish living in Iraq with that man in charge?

Are you insane?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
You like Saddam Hussein?

One doesn't have to like the man to find the notion that he was one of the worst dictators since Hitler laughable.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
I hope you would join me in saying this practice is wrong despite which party started it.

Indubitably. Democracy is one of my highest ideals. I'd rather lose fairly than win dishonestly, unless I'm playing Illuminati. People died so we could have the right to vote. To me, democracy is sacred and playing games like this is ****ting upon those who gave their lives so you and I could vote.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


One doesn't have to like the man to find the notion that he was one of the worst dictators since Hitler laughable.

Other than Pol Pot, who could be worse?

[Velociryx]

The "Coalition of the Willing" is but a shadow of the coalition formed during the first gulf war. Surely you realize this.

Further, when things like PatAct 1 & 2 are passed into law, when the Republican controlled congress would rather re-write the rules to suit them and their current position (require a 51 majority at a time when they are in control of 55 seats, rather than simply make filabusters as they once were, thus solving the problem and still leaving a valuable parliamentary tool as an option for the minority party), yes....when I see things like these, and more, I am duly suspicious.

I'd rather take my chances with any dem with a pulse than more of this.

-=Vel=-

[Pax]

Originally posted by Ned


Other than Pol Pot, who could be worse?

Who is Joe Stalin?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned


Other than Pol Pot, who could be worse?

Stalin, Mao, Mobutu, Mengistu, the current dictatorship in Sudan, Suharto, the Kims, SLORC, and a number of African dictators who's name escapes me.

[Pax]

Che don't be hard on Ned his republican fact sheet says Saddam is the worse. It also has no record of Saddam's involvement with Rumsfeld and company.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ned


Other than Pol Pot, who could be worse?

Stalin, Moa, several African dictators who destroyed who countries (Laurant Kabila & the 1970's dictator of Uganda come to mind), the Asad family of Syria, the current Burmese government, and let's not forget North Korea and Iran. Most of the former Soviet Central Asian Republics have some pretty bad dictaotors. Various war time Vietnamese.

Saddam wasn't the worst as there are easily 6-12 ahead of him in line.ahead of him.

[Velociryx]

Fact: "The Filabuster" is a longstanding parliamentary procedure. This procedure is in place for a good reason (and that reason has been stated numerous times)

Fact: The rules on filabustering got changed. For the worse. (and the rules ought to be changed back...easy enough, with the majority the repubs have).

Fact: Now that the Repugs find themselves with a (slim) majority in the Senate, they wish to re-write the rules *with the expressed purpose* of preventing the Dems from opposing Bush's Judge nominees. This goes against the democratic tradition, and it goes against the intentions of the founding fathers.

The conclusion is inescapable. It's an undisguised power play. To label it as *anything* else is to ignore the evidence before you.

This, combined with the right-wing control of the majority party and their bizzare, paranoid, fear-and-hate-mongering agenda is disturbing to say the least.

-=Vel=-

[Ned]

Originally posted by Velociryx
The "Coalition of the Willing" is but a shadow of the coalition formed during the first gulf war. Surely you realize this.

-=Vel=-

No doubt. However the Gulf War I coalition was the greatest assembled in the history of mankind - even greater than the coalition we assembled for World War II. But think about this, Vel, had Bush Sr. declared his intention of going after Saddam in that war, he could not and probably would not have been able to assemble even half the coalition that he did, and may not have been able to get UN Security Council approval even though Saddam had just invaded and occupied Kuwait.

I would also like to point out that George W. Bush achieved an overwhelming vote in Congress for war -- something that his father did not achieve in the case of Kuwait. Even Kerry-the-pious voted in favor of the war this time. He voted against the war that time. Now how would you like to explain that?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Fact: "The Filabuster" is a longstanding parliamentary procedure. This procedure is in place for a good reason (and that reason has been stated numerous times)

Fact: The rules on filabustering got changed. For the worse. (and the rules ought to be changed back...easy enough, with the majority the repubs have).

Fact: Now that the Repugs find themselves with a (slim) majority in the Senate, they wish to re-write the rules *with the expressed purpose* of preventing the Dems from opposing Bush's Judge nominees. This goes against the democratic tradition, and it goes against the intentions of the founding fathers.

The conclusion is inescapable. It's an undisguised power play. To label it as *anything* else is to ignore the evidence before you.

This, combined with the right-wing control of the majority party and their bizzare, paranoid, fear-and-hate-mongering agenda is disturbing to say the least.

-=Vel=-

The Dems would then the wise to advocate a restoration of the prior rules about filibuster, at least when judicial appointments are at issue. You will note however that they will not propose this and will continue to insist that they have the right to essentially veto any Bush judicial nominees because Republicans do not have the 60 votes to invoke cloture.

Before you cast stones, they say.