Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Off-Topic Discussion > Parking Lot


the new health care?

Parking Lot


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-26-2009, 02:02 PM   #286
Naega jeil jal naga
 
Dirtbag59's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Atlanta, Georgia From: Silver Spring, Maryland
Age: 28
Posts: 14,451
Re: the new health care?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule View Post
Obama guarantees health care overhaul will pass - Yahoo! News

Pres Obama is putting alot on the line, I have to assume he knows he has enough to get this behemoth passed.
Don't make promises you can't keep.



To be fair though I think the older Bush was under the impression that a segment of the population wanted to create a state called "New Texas" and being sort of a Texan himself Bush found that be offensive.
__________________
"Hey baby, wake up from your a sleep." -Zlad

"I feel like Dirtbag has been slowly and methodically trolling the board for a month or so now."
- FRPLG
Dirtbag59 is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 08-26-2009, 02:40 PM   #287
MVP
 
CRedskinsRule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pasadena, Md
Age: 47
Posts: 12,387
Re: the new health care?

It was brought up, probably inappropriately in the RIP thread, but this is in fact a pure political bs move that should offend the voters as much as any gerrymandering scheme ever done. The point of succession laws is not to be changed in whim with political hacks, but in fact guarantee stable and fair transitions within our society.

Gov. would OK law change for Kennedy successor - Yahoo! News

I agree with Trample, and I really have little respect for Ted K.

Last edited by CRedskinsRule; 08-26-2009 at 03:20 PM.
CRedskinsRule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2009, 03:09 PM   #288
Playmaker
 
Trample the Elderly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Three Chopt Virginia
Age: 36
Posts: 2,906
Re: the new health care?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dmek25 View Post
change, here we come
Socialist liquidate the mentally ill first.
__________________
A funny thing happened on the way to the temple. The moneychangers bought the priesthood.
Trample the Elderly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2009, 03:18 PM   #289
Living Legend
 
That Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Springfield, VA
Age: 31
Posts: 16,247
Re: the new health care?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly View Post
Socialist liquidate the mentally ill first.
in china, death row inmates == free organ farm.

soylent green... is people!
__________________
Who says shameless self promotion is stupid? oh yeah, that was me... Click For Tunes!
That Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2009, 03:24 PM   #290
Eternally Legendary
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 34
Posts: 9,858
Re: the new health care?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule View Post
It was brought up, probably inappropriately in the RIP thread, but this is in fact a pure political bs move that should offend the voters as much as any gerrymandering scheme ever done. The point of succession laws is not to be changed in whim with political hacks, but in fact guarantee stable and fair transitions within our society.

Gov. would OK law change for Kennedy successor - Yahoo! News

I agree with Trample, and I really have little respect for this man.
When did it become the norm in the Senate to have 60 votes to pass anything? This is a political tactic much like the filibusterer. In this matter respect isn't required, only that you understand we all have to do what we must.
__________________
"The Redskins have always suffered from chronic organizational deformities under Snyder."

-Jenkins
saden1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2009, 12:04 AM   #291
MVP
 
CRedskinsRule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pasadena, Md
Age: 47
Posts: 12,387
Re: the new health care?

Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1 View Post
When did it become the norm in the Senate to have 60 votes to pass anything? This is a political tactic much like the filibusterer. In this matter respect isn't required, only that you understand we all have to do what we must.
Democrats and Republicans alike have been using the 60vote barrier since Clinton. The Democrats took it to new heights against Bush. And I think, for revamping such a huge portion of the American Life, it is well worth using such a political tactic, and as you said, it's simply those who are against the bill doing "what they must do"
CRedskinsRule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2009, 01:45 AM   #292
Playmaker
 
70Chip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Manassas
Age: 43
Posts: 3,048
Re: the new health care?

Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1 View Post
When did it become the norm in the Senate to have 60 votes to pass anything? This is a political tactic much like the filibusterer. In this matter respect isn't required, only that you understand we all have to do what we must.
You ask a fair question:

[edit] U.S. Filibuster History


[edit] Early use

In 1789, the first U.S. Senate adopted rules allowing the Senate "to move the previous question," ending debate and proceeding to a vote. Aaron Burr argued that the motion regarding the previous question was redundant, had only been exercised once in the preceding four years, and should be eliminated.[12] In 1806, the Senate agreed, recodifying its rules, and thus the potential for a filibuster sprang into being.[12] Because the Senate created no alternative mechanism for terminating debate, the filibuster became an option for delay and blocking of floor votes.
The filibuster remained a solely theoretical option until the late 1830s. In 1841, a defining moment came during debate on a bill to charter the Second Bank of the United States. Senator Henry Clay tried to end debate via majority vote. Senator William R. King threatened a filibuster, saying that Clay "may make his arrangements at his boarding house for the winter". Other Senators backed King, and Clay backed down.[12]

[edit] 20th century and the emergence of cloture

In 1917, a rule allowing for the cloture of debate (ending a filibuster) was adopted by the Democratic Senate[13] at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson.[14] From 1917 to 1949, the requirement for cloture was two-thirds of those voting.
In 1946, Southern Senators blocked a vote on a bill proposed by Democrat Dennis Chavez of New Mexico (S. 101) that would have created a permanent Fair Employment Practices Committee (FEPC) to prevent discrimination in the work place. The filibuster lasted weeks, and Senator Chavez was forced to remove the bill from consideration after a failed cloture vote even though he had enough votes to pass the bill. As civil rights loomed on the Senate agenda, this rule was revised in 1949 to allow cloture on any measure or motion by two-thirds of the entire Senate membership; in 1959 the threshold was restored to two-thirds of those voting. After a series of filibusters led by Southern Democrats in the 1960s over civil rights legislation, the Democratic-controlled Senate[13] in 1975 revised its cloture rule so that three-fifths of the Senators sworn (usually 60 senators) could limit debate. Changes to Senate rules still require two-thirds of Senators voting. Despite this rule, the filibuster or the threat of a filibuster remains an important tactic that allows a minority to affect legislation. Senator Strom Thurmond (D/R-SC) set a record in 1957 by filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1957 for 24 hours and 18 minutes,[15] although the bill ultimately passed. Thurmond broke the previous record of 22 hours and 26 minutes which Wayne Morse (I-OR) had established in 1953 protesting the Tidelands Oil legislation.
The filibuster has tremendously increased in frequency of use since the 1960s. In the 1960s, no Senate term had more than seven filibusters. One of the most notable filibusters of the 1960s was when southern Democratic Senators attempted, unsuccessfully, to block the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by making a filibuster that lasted for 75 hours. In the first decade of the 21st century, no Senate term had fewer than 49 filibusters. The 1999-2002 Senate terms both had 58 filibusters.[16] The 110th Congress broke the record for cloture votes reaching 112 at the end of 2008[17][18], though cloture votes are increasingly used for purposes unrelated to filibusters.[19]


[edit] Current U.S. practice

Filibusters do not occur in legislative bodies in which time for debate is strictly limited by procedural rules. The House did not adopt rules restricting debate until 1842, and the filibuster was used in that body before that time.
Budget bills are governed under special rules called "reconciliation" which do not allow filibusters. Reconciliation once only applied to bills that would reduce the budget deficit, but since 1996 it has been used for all matters related to budget issues.
A filibuster can be defeated by the governing party if they leave the debated issue on the agenda indefinitely, without adding anything else. Indeed, James Strom Thurmond's own attempt to filibuster the Civil Rights Act was defeated when Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield refused to refer any further business to the Senate, which required the filibuster to be kept up indefinitely. Instead, the opponents were all given a chance to speak, and the matter eventually was forced to a vote.

[edit] Recent U.S. Senate history

In 2005, a group of Republican senators led by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), responding to the Democrats' threat to filibuster some judicial nominees of President George W. Bush to prevent a vote on the nominations, floated the idea of having Vice President Dick Cheney, as President of the Senate, rule from the chair that a filibuster on judicial nominees was inconsistent with the constitutional grant of power to the president to name judges with the advice and consent of the Senate (interpreting "consent of the Senate" to mean "consent of a simple majority of Senators," not "consent under the Senate rules").[20] Senator Trent Lott, the junior Republican senator from Mississippi, had named the plan the "nuclear option." Republican leaders preferred to use the term "constitutional option", although opponents and some supporters of the plan continued to use "nuclear option".
On May 23, 2005, a group of fourteen senators was dubbed the Gang of 14, consisting of seven Democrats and seven Republicans. The seven Democrats promised not to filibuster Bush's nominees except under "extraordinary circumstances," while the seven Republicans promised to oppose the nuclear option unless they thought a nominee was being filibustered that was not under "extraordinary circumstances". Specifically, the Democrats promised to stop the filibuster on Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, and William H. Pryor, Jr., who had all been filibustered in the Senate before. In return, the Republicans would stop the effort to ban the filibuster for judicial nominees. "Extraordinary circumstances" was not defined in advance. The term was open for interpretation by each Senator, but the Republicans and Democrats would have had to agree on what it meant if any nominee were to be blocked.
On January 3, 2007, at the end of the second session of the 109th United States Congress, this agreement expired.
On July 17, 2007, Senate Democratic leadership allowed a filibuster, on debate about a variety of amendments to the 2008 defense authorization bill H.R. 1585, the Defense Authorization bill, specifically the Levin-Reed amendment S.AMDT.2087 to H.R.1585. The filibuster had been threatened by Republican leadership to prompt a cloture vote.[citation needed]
As of August 2009[update], the Democrats are one vote short of a filibuster-proof supermajority, due to the August 25 death of senator Ted Kennedy.[21]
Usually proposals for constitutional amendments are not filibustered. This is because a two-thirds majority is needed to pass such a proposal, which is more than the three-fifths majority needed to invoke cloture. So usually a filibuster cannot change the outcome, because if a filibuster succeeds, the amendment proposal would not have passed anyway. However, in some cases, such as for the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006, the Senate did vote on cloture for the proposal; when the vote on cloture failed, the proposal was dropped. Some made the accusation that the opponents of the amendment did not want to face political consequences in a midterm-election year for directly voting against the amendment, so they defeated it in a procedural vote instead
__________________
This Monkey's Gone to Heaven
70Chip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2009, 02:22 AM   #293
Eternally Legendary
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 34
Posts: 9,858
Re: the new health care?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule View Post
Democrats and Republicans alike have been using the 60vote barrier since Clinton. The Democrats took it to new heights against Bush. And I think, for revamping such a huge portion of the American Life, it is well worth using such a political tactic, and as you said, it's simply those who are against the bill doing "what they must do"
That's clearly not true. And yes, contentious issues warrant contention.

Notice who started the trend in the 92nd congress.
__________________
"The Redskins have always suffered from chronic organizational deformities under Snyder."

-Jenkins
saden1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2009, 02:48 AM   #294
MVP
 
CRedskinsRule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pasadena, Md
Age: 47
Posts: 12,387
Re: the new health care?

Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1 View Post
That's clearly not true. And yes, contentious issues warrant contention.

Notice who started the trend in the 92nd congress.
from your link:
Quote:
Senate Action on Cloture Motions
Congress, Years Motions Filed, Votes on Cloture, Cloture Invoked
111, 2009-2010, 43, 22, 20
110, 2007-2008, 139, 112, 61
104 1995-1996, 82, 50, 9
I said that both parties practice it and that the Democrats took it to new heights, to which you provided the link saying my statement was false. Clearly, the 110 Congress went to an extreme in this practice, and I included the 104 Congress to show that Republicans had indeed used it, but clearly not at the same pace.
What part of my statement were you trying to disprove with your link?
If it was the since Clinton portion and you were saying it goes back to 72, ok, I didn't date it far enough back. My basic point was still valid.
CRedskinsRule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2009, 03:24 AM   #295
Eternally Legendary
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 34
Posts: 9,858
Re: the new health care?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule View Post
from your link:


I said that both parties practice it and that the Democrats took it to new heights, to which you provided the link saying my statement was false. Clearly, the 110 Congress went to an extreme in this practice, and I included the 104 Congress to show that Republicans had indeed used it, but clearly not at the same pace.
What part of my statement were you trying to disprove with your link?
If it was the since Clinton portion and you were saying it goes back to 72, ok, I didn't date it far enough back. My basic point was still valid.
Your statement is false because you stated that the Democrats took it to new heights against Bush. Relative to previous sessions when Clinton was in office, which is the point of reference in your statement, your claim isn't true. When you compare the 104rd congress with the 103th congress which saw a ~36% increase compared to the previous congress (102nd) you are still standing in the invalid circle.


If you really want to speak to the issue of taking things to new heights you would hit the jackpot with 110th congress.
__________________
"The Redskins have always suffered from chronic organizational deformities under Snyder."

-Jenkins
saden1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2009, 12:09 PM   #296
MVP
 
CRedskinsRule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pasadena, Md
Age: 47
Posts: 12,387
Re: the new health care?

Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1 View Post
Your statement is false because you stated that the Democrats took it to new heights against Bush. Relative to previous sessions when Clinton was in office, which is the point of reference in your statement, your claim isn't true. When you compare the 104rd congress with the 103th congress which saw a ~36% increase compared to the previous congress (102nd) you are still standing in the invalid circle.


If you really want to speak to the issue of taking things to new heights you would hit the jackpot with 110th congress.
which was a democratic congress with Bush. so I was right??

anyway, its a political tactic, that is valid and has been used more and more over the past 38 years.
CRedskinsRule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2009, 01:58 PM   #297
Eternally Legendary
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 34
Posts: 9,858
Re: the new health care?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule View Post
which was a democratic congress with Bush. so I was right??

anyway, its a political tactic, that is valid and has been used more and more over the past 38 years.

You are not right. Let me break down the 110th congress for you:

  1. Bush was in office.
  2. The Democrats are in control.
  3. The Democrats have full control of what gets or doesn't get to the floor for a vote. If they choose to do so they can reject any bill proposed by the other-side from getting to the floor but that's really not good politics.
  4. Republicans use the filibusterer to stop them from passing all the bills they bring to the floor with a simple majority up-and-down vote.
  5. Democrats call for Cloture vote to stop debate. The cloture procedure is just to see if the other side really has 41 votes and force the issue.
  6. If cloture fails the filibusterer is successful.

So in that 110th congress the people doing filibustering are the people who don't have power, the Republicans. The correct assessment of the 110th congress would be:

Quote:
With Bush in office and Democrats in charge of both houses Republican senators took filibustering to new heights to stop the Democrats' agenda.
__________________
"The Redskins have always suffered from chronic organizational deformities under Snyder."

-Jenkins
saden1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2009, 02:19 PM   #298
MVP
 
CRedskinsRule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pasadena, Md
Age: 47
Posts: 12,387
Re: the new health care?

Thanks Saden.

I was thinking of when the judicial nominees were being held up, but you are right about the 110 congress.
CRedskinsRule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2009, 02:48 PM   #299
Eternally Legendary
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 34
Posts: 9,858
Re: the new health care?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule View Post
Thanks Saden.

I was thinking of when the judicial nominees were being held up, but you are right about the 110 congress.
You actually bring up a good point with Judicial nominees in that even with full control of the senate there are times when the majority use the filibusterer to stop the president's agenda/nominees. This is a rarity because the president is smart enough not to bring a nominee or agenda to the senate floor that doesn't already have majority support.

In 110th congress one nominee was filibustered by the Democrats but cloture was successfully with 62 votes and she now sits on a federal bench. Also there are instances where the majority party lets the minority party bring a bill to the floor but some some members of the majority party don't like the bill so they choose to filibusterer it.
__________________
"The Redskins have always suffered from chronic organizational deformities under Snyder."

-Jenkins
saden1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2009, 01:04 PM   #300
Playmaker
 
Slingin Sammy 33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 4,320
Re: the new health care?

In one of the ObamaCare discussions someone made the comment, "When do we start eating each other?".....apparently now

Report: Man's Finger Bitten Off During Fight at Health Care Rally - Political News - FOXNews.com

__________________
"I would bet.....(if), an angel fairy came down and said, '[You can have anything] in the world you would like to own,' I wouldn't be surprised if you said a football club and particularly the Washington Redskins.'' Jack Kent Cooke, 1996.
Slingin Sammy 33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 1.10805 seconds with 9 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25