Latest Breaking News

Dragonfli

(10,622 posts)

91. We are a culture ridden with faux-axioms; influenced by a non-objective profit driven media.

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 11:16 PM

Nov 2012

Your father was likely honest but misinformed, you trust him because he is an honest man. I only knew it was incorrect because I had need to look up some congressional history recently and happened to remember that factoid. Also, even history can mislead by omission, were it not for Howard Zinn I would be completely ignorant of many of the labor struggles within our own fairly recent history.

Trust your fathers common sense while checking for yourself what the facts are as best you can.
Nothing is in itself an ultimate source. Multiple sources are best

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

99 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Harry Reid Nuking Filibuster Rules [View all] trailmonkee Nov 2012 OP

More good news. n/t BellaKos Nov 2012 #1

Reid adheres to that "speak softly but carry a big stick" policy! LibGranny Nov 2012 #2

This time it will really, really happen MannyGoldstein Nov 2012 #3

This is the first time I recall Reid actually supporting the idea BlueStreak Nov 2012 #28

2010: Reid promises filibuster reform MannyGoldstein Nov 2012 #40

No, he needs to make sure there are enough votes railsback Nov 2012 #59

2010: "And we're going to make some changes in it.� MannyGoldstein Nov 2012 #67

4) Require 2/5th opposition to closure. ieoeja Nov 2012 #45

I don't see how that would work. BlueStreak Nov 2012 #48

You understood me backwards. Not 40 to cut off a filibuster. 40 to maintain a filibuster. ieoeja Nov 2012 #53

That's what we have today -- 60 votes required to cut off debate BlueStreak Nov 2012 #58

Not at all. jeff47 Nov 2012 #78

You are making a distinction without a difference BlueStreak Nov 2012 #83

No, you are not paying attention to the subtle difference. jeff47 Nov 2012 #89

So how would that work? BlueStreak Nov 2012 #90

. DURHAM D Nov 2012 #4

But the House will still be intransigent. Is there anything that can be done about that?? barnabas63 Nov 2012 #5

Senate Holds the Purse Strings... sally5050 Nov 2012 #8

House never had a fillibuster. caseymoz Nov 2012 #24

Incorrect Dragonfli Nov 2012 #30

However, I was told this by a source I implicitly trust . . . caseymoz Nov 2012 #68

We are a culture ridden with faux-axioms; influenced by a non-objective profit driven media. Dragonfli Nov 2012 #91

The House did have a filibuster until the mid-19th century. NYC Liberal Nov 2012 #34

As I've now been corrected. caseymoz Nov 2012 #69

So, if the House hasn't had a filibuster in over a century, does the Senate need one? n/t gkhouston Nov 2012 #85

Nope. Not IMO. Nuke it. NYC Liberal Nov 2012 #88

Why Not Nuke It? RobinA Nov 2012 #31

Yep. Wait Wut Nov 2012 #44

Each new session can totally re-instate any rules that previous sessions "nuked." ancianita Nov 2012 #66

Nope, that would be the House. nt awoke_in_2003 Nov 2012 #46

The House holds those, actually. Codeine Nov 2012 #75

Pass these around in the first session... FailureToCommunicate Nov 2012 #10

We need bulk pricing. AllyCat Nov 2012 #84

It could get worse. xxqqqzme Nov 2012 #14

The Senate is key to appointments. caseymoz Nov 2012 #22

I wish Cosmocat Nov 2012 #61

We'll see. caseymoz Nov 2012 #70

can't Obama make recess appointments? Ashened Nov 2012 #94

Recess appointments are constitutionally limited. caseymoz Nov 2012 #99

The obstruction by Republicans in the Senate was not always clear to people who don't pay close dflprincess Nov 2012 #92

Now can we confirm Goodwin Liu to Supreme Court or at least the 9th circuit? IfPalinisAnswerWatsQ Nov 2012 #6

And when the Republicans gain control of the Senate Art_from_Ark Nov 2012 #37

If these rethugs do ever win the Senate caveat_imperator Nov 2012 #43

BINGO IfPalinisAnswerWatsQ Nov 2012 #47

glad to here it spoken out loud JanT Nov 2012 #7

Can't the Republicans just, well, filibuster this? (nt) Posteritatis Nov 2012 #9

No... Blue Idaho Nov 2012 #12

+1 nt ProudProgressiveNow Nov 2012 #18

Ah! Okay. Posteritatis Nov 2012 #20

But can only be done that way at the START of a new Senate term -- i.e. this January. BlueStreak Nov 2012 #29

Thank you - I forgot to add that part. nt. Blue Idaho Nov 2012 #73

Possibly kurt_cagle Nov 2012 #26

What Does He Mean By - "We're Not Going To Do Away With The Filibuster But We're Going To Make.... global1 Nov 2012 #11

He will change the rule so cosmicone Nov 2012 #15

Why Not A Simple Majority Of 51?..... global1 Nov 2012 #32

Without a filibuster, Bork would have been on SCOTUS. n/t cosmicone Nov 2012 #64

I don't know why he is so fond of the filibuster but he is. He has said so. Cleita Nov 2012 #51

Remember when the Repukes were in charge they whined about any filibuster K8-EEE Nov 2012 #17

I'd be fine with them if they actually had to stand up and speak in order to do one. (nt) Posteritatis Nov 2012 #21

Or make filibuster like it was in Mr. Smith goes to Washington 99th_Monkey Nov 2012 #25

Yes, not only is it inconvenient -- it's also highly VISIBLE. NYC Liberal Nov 2012 #35

Great point! yes. that too. nt 99th_Monkey Nov 2012 #52

Yeah a real filibuster would be great! pam4water Nov 2012 #42

If you want this to happen - contact Harry Reid ASAP! Blue Idaho Nov 2012 #13

imho, the filibuster rules should be suspended until the republicans decide to plan nice Mr. Sparkle Nov 2012 #16

Leave the rules alone. Make the repugs stand there and read the fucking phone book.... Hotler Nov 2012 #71

Bout time.. nt ProudProgressiveNow Nov 2012 #19

This is as good news as the Obama victory CanonRay Nov 2012 #23

Don't just flap your lips about it, Harry. DO IT. kestrel91316 Nov 2012 #27

Fuck yeah!!! now lets pass that jobs bill please!!! and-justice-for-all Nov 2012 #33

I will believe it when I see it. nm rhett o rick Nov 2012 #36

I am sorry to say I share your pessimism whole heartily. harun Nov 2012 #96

I am afraid that's what I believe. nm rhett o rick Nov 2012 #97

I think that is an excelent decision. Agnosticsherbet Nov 2012 #38

Bout time! nt freedom fighter jh Nov 2012 #39

Four years late. tclambert Nov 2012 #49

Gets hopes up so they can dashed once again XD pam4water Nov 2012 #41

Fuck Mitch McConnell and the Turtle he rode in on jpak Nov 2012 #50

Reid better be careful. Beacool Nov 2012 #54

Not a problem. The Democrats never use these things to our advantage anyway. yardwork Nov 2012 #56

Why do you think a Republican majority would keep the filibuster? jeff47 Nov 2012 #79

I wouldn't have a problem with this Blasphemer Nov 2012 #81

Give em hell, Harry. yardwork Nov 2012 #55

The filibuster is supposed to allow senators to remain talking on the floor to make their point. Kablooie Nov 2012 #57

I hope so, Harry Reid has been WAY too soft. DividedWeAre Nov 2012 #60

I hope he follows through..... Swede Atlanta Nov 2012 #62

YES! silverweb Nov 2012 #63

Can we get rid of the ridiculous invisible hold rule as well? MessiahRp Nov 2012 #65

^^ This. You wanna hold something up, you should be able to defend it. n/t gkhouston Nov 2012 #86

Well you better get busy! You have lots to do. lonestarnot Nov 2012 #72

We need to change the rules to allow Democrats to keep the Repugs from gridlocking us into ... Nika Nov 2012 #74

DO IT, Harry and secure your legacy! wordpix Nov 2012 #76

No need to try and save it. D23MIURG23 Nov 2012 #77

if he leaves them a way to use it- they WILL. BlueMan Votes Nov 2012 #80

I'll believe it when it actually happens. Angleae Nov 2012 #82

It's about fucking time, but I'll believe it when I see it yurbud Nov 2012 #87

Good start. sarcasmo Nov 2012 #93

Kick! sarcasmo Nov 2012 #95

They need to remove the fake filibuster. ManiacJoe Nov 2012 #98