Politics, Politics, Politics

[LukeAdams]

.....Maybe I've learned something here, hubby; I'm not sure. Common sense is that when a cloture motion (note singular) is filed, it is to end a filibuster. That means a filibuster had been filed. If I'm wrong for that ridiculously assumption, I apologize. Getting the exact number of filibusters from senate records or any other source isn't all that simple; at least not in a time frame I have for looking for them. Also, this thing with multiple clotures is news to me and a bit confusing. The 111th Congress & first 9 months of the 112th Congress showed there were 246 cloture motions, and that wasn't even counting those for the President's nominations, a whole other topic which showed that out of 168 cloture motions ever filed on President's nominations since the turn of the 20th century, 82 (42%) were filed since 2009; a obvious disproportionate share filed. If that's Congress's way of showing their desired to work with Obama, I'm Donald Trump's long lost *******.
.....Anyway, all the graphs and research material revealed one very obvious thing, that the Congress was/is there to obstruct the President's agenda period. As Rush Limbaugh openly said on his radio station "want Obama to fail". Which is why the likes of Donald Trump & Bernie Sanders are popular ... people are fed up. The Republican legislation in NC is so scared of what's coming that they have removed the "straight party voting" option from the ballots. I've never had to stand in line to vote for more than 30 minutes, in my life, but this last mid-term, my wife and I stood in line 3 frik'n hours. We were just thankful it was not raining, as much of that waiting time was outside.
.....Also, this talk the Republicans are using of the President being against our military, I have a short list of documented filibusters the Republicans have filed to stop veteran bills and causes ...

http://www.answers.com/Q/How_many_times_have_republicans_filibustered_Obama

What's so funny, however, is the fact the tables got turned with the Iran Deal ... a little filibuster Karma in the making by Democrats.


.....I recall saying that, now, and still think that would be an interesting ticket. But, they are not the ticket I'd prefer seeing. Bernie & Elizabeth are platforming on pay equality and the Supply Side "myth" and Wall Street/Banking, things I believe in myself. It makes no sense when a man can sit in his office, punch in a few keys and make a cool million in minutes, but then when he fucks up, turns to everyone else and says "I'm too big to let fail". Or, when he fails at his job and still gets a 6-digit bonus at the end of the year. Or, when the CEO brings a company to its knees and the board hands him a $5 million check to go away. Thing that is really disgusting about it, is we didn't seem to learn our lessons, as our Congress is wanting to relax banking regulations once again.
Thanks on the cloture info; I'm going to read a bit more on that. A lit'l schooling doesn't hurt! Mac View attachment 659208

Mac opines in various forums on here, as if he or the rest of us cannot live another day without his rendering of his latest opinion. Somewhere on here he advises someone he cannot post something, because he is on his company computer, and the document or pic is unfortunately at home, on his personal computer. Alas.
Mac likely spends quite a bit of his time at work, at his itty bitty job, on the 45th row, 86th column, spinning out his stats that are evidently supposed to end all debate, while is wife, who probably is the real breadwinner, actually does some work.
Mac or any of the rest of you that are spending time on this site while working and drawing pay from an employer are not worth any more than a career politician of either party, which is pretty worthless.

 

[falcondfw69]

Mac,

You've repeated the same mistake. You changed terms from filibuster to motion to filibuster, but then post a plot of cloture. That plot is exactly the same data I posted in my senate.gov link. Again, per the congressional research service, cloture motions don't equal filibusters....or motions to filibuster, whatever that is.

Cloture can be invoked regardless of whether there is a filibuster. Also, multiple cloture votes or motions may happen for any one bill if it is filibustered.

If you want to use cloture vote data as a proxy for obstruction, the best way would be to subtract the number of clotures invoked from the number of cloture motions filed. If cloture is invoked, then the bill or issue progresses to a vote. Therefore the difference I listed is the number of times where cloture failed, and the measure didn't proceed....at least not at that time.

So look at your plot. In the big spike of 2007-2008, there were 139 cloture motions filed and 61 times it was invoked....so there were 78 times where progress on a measure was blocked by failure to get cloture.

Now look back at 1995-1996. There were 82 cloture motions filed and 9 times it was invoked. So 73 times a measure was blocked. Guess who held the majority then....Republicans. So the Senate Democrats then were basically just as effective at obstructing the Senate as republicans have been of late.

As to your statement of not recalling favoring Bernie Sanders. Check your Aug 7 post in this thread....you said "I'd like to see a Bernie Sanders/Eliz. Warren ticket, but that won't happen"

Sucks when it is so easy to disprove your BS with logic and facts, doesn't it Mac.

 

[falcondfw69]

and you can continue the USSR died soon and the European Union! no eternal empires! unfortunately it everything I have experienced!

There are no eternal empires, except for the Kingdom of God.

 

[MacNfries]

Sucks when it is so easy to disprove your BS with logic and facts, doesn't it Mac.

And what, exactly, has been disproven, oh heel hound? Referring to clotures filed to stop filibusters? The only thing that hoping hubby has provided is the fact that more than one cloture could be filed against a filibuster, which I wasn't aware of. And don't you, OF ALL PEOPLE, talk about facts. You wouldn't know one if the good Lord himself came down and stuck one up your ass. You've certainly never provided many to this forum ... so STFU or show your proof.

 

[MacNfries]

Mac opines in various forums on here, as if he or the rest of us cannot live another day without his rendering of his latest opinion. Somewhere on here he advises someone he cannot post something, because he is on his company computer, and the document or pic is unfortunately at home, on his personal computer. Alas.

I'm not sure what your point is, Luke. What exactly did I not post because I'm on a company computer? I certainly don't keep my "porn stash" at work, if that was what you were referring too. As far as "living another day without my renderings", just leave off the without my renderings part, because I couldn't care less if you lived another day, actually.

Mac likely spends quite a bit of his time at work, at his itty bitty job, on the 45th row, 86th column, spinning out his stats that are evidently supposed to end all debate, while is wife, who probably is the real breadwinner, actually does some work.

Are you trying to "insult me", Luke? "itty bitty job" thing? You're supposedly a lawyer (that's what your profile says) ... wow, and that's your best insult? And it's 3 pm in the afternoon when most "real" lawyers are busy working ... but maybe you're just an ambulance chaser? Or better yet, a paralegal? And why would you care IF my wife makes more money than I (she doesn't actually)? And why all these "assumptions? If you wish to know something about me, ask. You know lawyers aren't suppose to ask questions that they don't already know the answers too, actually ... it's the first rule of a "real" lawyer; No Open End questions, right?

Mac or any of the rest of you that are spending time on this site while working and drawing pay from an employer are not worth any more than a career politician of either party, which is pretty worthless.

If my posts, or any other posters here, annoys you, I'm sure you're intelligent enough (because you say you're a lawyer (wow) to put a poster on IGNORE, or would you prefer acting annoyed and tossing out your powerful, lawyer insults?
And what about YOU, oh high profile Mr Lawyer? How do you find time, at work, to come to this website to criticize those who are on this website? Don't you have a client or 2 to consult with? And whether I'm working at McDonalds or Walmart for $8.00 an hour, or have a $200,000 salaried job seems to be more important to YOU than anyone else. Go chase another ambulance and leave the folks here alone, Matlock!

And, we're back to my original question ... "what's your point?" ... informational, sarcasm, or just to belittle? Because frankly, I think you sucked at your attempt regardless.

 

[MacNfries]

There are no eternal empires, except for the Kingdom of God.

You want to start another/separate, thread to discuss your religious beliefs, that'd be ok. We already know you have fanatical, Bachmann/Huckabee/Perry beliefs ...
.........By the way, what's the body count on Jade Helm 15? Oh wait, don't tell me, its been moved to October 15th now ... not August or September 15th. Is Obama using drones, because I haven't heard of any US casualties in Texas, other than the killers running around shooting cops with the lax, Texas gun laws. Any update? Mac

 

[hoping hubby]

And what, exactly, has been disproven, oh heel hound? Referring to clotures filed to stop filibusters? The only thing that hoping hubby has provided is the fact that more than one cloture could be filed against a filibuster, which I wasn't aware of. And don't you, OF ALL PEOPLE, talk about facts. You wouldn't know one if the good Lord himself came down and stuck one up your ass. You've certainly never provided many to this forum ... so STFU or show your proof.
View attachment 661645

Actually I provided something much more important than just the fact cloture can be invoked more than once per bill. I documented that in the 95/95 congress, the Democrats then in the minority blocked basically the same number of measures that republicans have of late. It may have gotten buried in all the details. Basically what I was pointing out was the difference between cloture motions and cloture being invoked. A cloture motion is an attempt by the majority to stop debate (sometime, but not always a filibuster) and move to a vote on the measure. If cloture is invoked, that means they got 60 votes and are moving forward.

So when the cloture isn't invoked (cloture vote fails to get 60 votes) then and only then is the minority really blocking a measure.

Looking at history - data from: http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm


Year - Cloture motions - Cloture invoked - Measures blocked - Minority party
2013/14 253 187 66 Repub
2011/12 115 41 74 Repub
2009/10 137 63 74 Repub
2007/08 139 61 78 Repub
2005/06 68 34 34 Dem
2003/04 62 12 50 Dem
2001/02 71 34 37 Repub
1999/00 71 28 43 Dem
1997/98 69 18 51 Dem
1995/96 82 9 73 Dem

So in the last several congresses with republicans in the minority, they have generally been able to actually block 70 some measures from progressing in each congress. In 1995, the then minority Democrats blocked 73 measures.

While there are more cloture motions lately, the republicans have hardly taken "obstruction to a new level". They've accomplished about the same level of obstruction as the democrats did in 95/96.

Both parties have learned to be pretty damn effective at mucking up the works in the last 20 years. Frankly I'd like to throw the whole bunch out!

 

[MacNfries]

While there are more cloture motions lately, the republicans have hardly taken "obstruction to a new level". They've accomplished about the same level of obstruction as the democrats did in 95/96.

Thanks, hh for the clarity and info. A couple things ... I don't know of any congress who has purposely damaged the country's credit rating ... maybe you know of one. Or the residual costs associated with purposely slowing down the economic recovery. Also, Republicans have recently been saying that Obama hates the military ... withholding a portion of their automatic salary increase, but calling it a 'pay cut'. Why not list, due to your valuable access of senate info, the bills killed by Republicans regarding veterans ... just a dozen or so would be enough to make the point. And its been the Republicans continually wanting to push our military into wars.

Second, Republicans have voted to *******, defund, or repeal some part of the Affordable Care act not once, twice, twenty, or even fifty times, but as of June 2015 ... wait for it ... over sixty times. I have an article somewhere (believe it was by Forbes) that said that each time the ACA is brought up for congressional vote it costs the government ( us taxpayers ) over $600,000+ ... that's a cool $36 million just tossed up into the wind.

Term & age limits + elimination of the electoral vote + plus repeal of the Citizen's United ruling ... a good start. It is time.

 

[TwoBiFour]

Both parties have learned to be pretty damn effective at mucking up the works in the last 20 years. Frankly I'd like to throw the whole bunch out!

- is the smartest thing I've read on this post in a Looooong time.

 

[falcondfw69]

- is the smartest thing I've read on this post in a Looooong time.

2 bi, that is the most intelligent thing I have heard in years. Welcome to the group.

 

[MacNfries]

Awesomely funny T-shirt I ran across over the weekend ... I'd love to send this "T" to someone special if only I knew where to mail it.



A whole state duped by from its biased, deceiving, fear-mongering Governor and ultra-right wingers. I'm sure the voters wised up a bit more after this tom-foolery. Wonder when voters will wise up enough to vote the bastards out of office? The country is starting to really get fed up with the BS of the Republican far-right.
An old saying goes "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me" ... let's see, Republican voters have been fooled, hummmm, about 1,000 times .... I know that's a conservative number, but seemed appropriate seeing that they say they ARE conservatives.....

 

[expatdad]

Gun Laws: Do American politicians support the right to *******, rather than the right to Life?

 

[MikeD]

Gun Laws: Do American politicians support the right to *******, rather than the right to Life?

Right to life is a two way street. If I am attacked and have my own firearm, then it's equal. If the criminal only has one, then I'm a dead man.

 

[TwoBiFour]

Gun Laws: Do American politicians support the right to *******, rather than the right to Life?

What does that have anything to do with guns? The Right to bear arms does not include the right to *******. How can you even associate that and try to base an argument? You obviously don't understand , In short...

William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.

The part in bold is the most important aspect. It is in place to stop government oppression like you see in so many 3rd world countries. However they are succeeding in other ways. It seems that as long as people have their Facebook, iPads, and the Kardashians - no one seems to care much what happens.

Accountability is all wee need. I should have the right to own what I want, do what I want, and say what I want - !BUT! I must be held accountable for my damaging property, my Hostile actions, and my slander of speech. This accountability does not exist so we are all stuck in this conundrum of BLAME. We try to out law ownership and blame car manufactures for accidents at excessive speeds, we target the victims and shelter the offender, and we label everyone "haters" and "Racist" only because they speak their mind, in some hopes of silencing them.

Your question is more suited for Abortions than it is guns. Only people ******* people. (and disease and viruses ... and poison spiders and snakes ... maybe an elephant stampede... sharks! can't forget the sharks) and sometimes bears

 

[MikeD]

What does that have anything to do with guns? The Right to bear arms does not include the right to *******. How can you even associate that and try to base an argument? You obviously don't understand , In short...

The part in bold is the most important aspect. It is in place to stop government oppression like you see in so many 3rd world countries. However they are succeeding in other ways. It seems that as long as people have their Facebook, iPads, and the Kardashians - no one seems to care much what happens.

Accountability is all wee need. I should have the right to own what I want, do what I want, and say what I want - !BUT! I must be held accountable for my damaging property, my Hostile actions, and my slander of speech. This accountability does not exist so we are all stuck in this conundrum of BLAME. We try to out law ownership and blame car manufactures for accidents at excessive speeds, we target the victims and shelter the offender, and we label everyone "haters" and "Racist" only because they speak their mind, in some hopes of silencing them.

Your question is more suited for Abortions than it is guns. Only people ******* people. (and disease and viruses ... and poison spiders and snakes ... maybe an elephant stampede... sharks! can't forget the sharks) and sometimes bears

Just asking, Alex Jones, but do guns make it a lot easier to ******* and inflict mass casualties in a small amount of time? They are the weapon of choice because to ******* 10 college students or a church prayer group with a knife or baseball bat just would take too fucking long and you may end up being disarmed and having those used against you. Faggot gun owner here but not a gun nut(very small penis). See Ted Nugent.

 

[TwoBiFour]

Just asking, Alex Jones, but do guns make it a lot easier to ******* and inflict mass casualties in a small amount of time? They are the weapon of choice because to ******* 10 college students or a church prayer group with a knife or baseball bat just would take too fucking long and you may end up being disarmed and having those used against you. Faggot gun owner here but not a gun nut(very small penis). See Ted Nugent.

Don't know who Alex Jones is, but to answer your questions - it all depends on many, many factors. The person, the place, who is around, motive etc. But it's not relevant. If guns were illegal and not available and I wanted to ******* people in a mall i would find a way to do it. If time was a factor I would find a fast way, if Being disarmed worried me I'd make provisions to prevent it. If some nut job really wanted to ******* a lot quickly localized bio-weapons aren't hard to make. In short, no I don't believe outlawing guns would prevent, or even deter attempts at mass killings. Are we going to also incriminate every possible bomb component? Make baseball bats illegal becasue someone *might* use it for a weapon?

I always found it funny when flying, the TSA would take my precision screwdriver set becasue I could shove it into someones juggler, but they always let me keep my nice Stainless Steal ball point pen........

 

[MikeD]

Don't know who Alex Jones is, but to answer your questions - it all depends on many, many factors. The person, the place, who is around, motive etc. But it's not relevant. If guns were illegal and not available and I wanted to ******* people in a mall i would find a way to do it. If time was a factor I would find a fast way, if Being disarmed worried me I'd make provisions to prevent it. If some nut job really wanted to ******* a lot quickly localized bio-weapons aren't hard to make. In short, no I don't believe outlawing guns would prevent, or even deter attempts at mass killings. Are we going to also incriminate every possible bomb component? Make baseball bats illegal becasue someone *might* use it for a weapon?

I always found it funny when flying, the TSA would take my precision screwdriver set becasue I could shove it into someones juggler, but they always let me keep my nice Stainless Steal ball point pen........

You're making ******* up. Most violent crimes are crimes of speed and opportunity. No one is planning to mug anyone with a dirty-bomb, or anything that would involve a lot of planning. Guns just make it easier to commit a crime. Cause only Superman can outrun a speeding bullet.

 

[MikeD]

You're making ******* up. Most violent crimes are crimes of speed and opportunity. No one is planning to mug anyone with a dirty-bomb, or anything that would involve a lot of planning. Guns just make it easier to commit a crime. Cause only Superman can outrun a speeding bullet.

If up to me, mandatory minimum of 20years first time you use a gun to commit a crime. 25/life if you shoot someone. Death penalty if they die. PERIOD! Law-abiding folks, career criminal or first timer.

 

[TwoBiFour]

You're making ******* up. Most violent crimes are crimes of speed and opportunity. No one is planning to mug anyone with a dirty-bomb, or anything that would involve a lot of planning. Guns just make it easier to commit a crime. Cause only Superman can outrun a speeding bullet.

But if everyone rushed the gunman instead of running away - how many shots would he get off? If everyone in the classroom holstered a gun (if even 2 people, or one), and were trained to use it (one good thing the draft use to do for our youth) how many shots would he get off? And yes, most of these shootings have been planed and thought out.

And your trying to compare mugging to mass shooting? Apples and oranges my friend. I can mug you just as fast with a knife. Lets keep the subject on track do you want to discuss one on one mugging or mass shootings?

 

[TwoBiFour]

And Ironically, this just in.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/gu...college-in-mass-killing/ar-AAf0MOh?li=BBkWgwN
But I ask again, if everyone carried, how many shots would the gunman get off? Would the gunman have thought twice about even the attempt?

You can't answer that any better than I can answer the question if he would have still killed that many people had he used a knife, or if he would even have tried if guns were not available.

(Notice I said "available" instead of "illegal" because making them "illegal" will NOT make them "unavailable")