Has anyone else been impressed by how Joe Lieberman has told the entire Democratic party to buzz off and completely torpedoed HCR all by himself?

The left wing hate sites (Daily Kos, Firedoglake, etc...) are up in arms right now because they have no path to 60 votes and it is all because of Lieberman.

I have read numerous places this is basically Lieberman's way of giving the party a big FU for primarying him and making him run as an independent in 2006. As is usually the case paybacks a bitch.

I just wondered if anyone else was kind of surprised that Lieberman has stood up to the pressure being put on him almost across the board making himself almost a defacto president with VETO power over legislation he doesn't like.

I think Joe is also endearing himself to a lot of frustrated Americans that are hungry for a politician that truly stands up for what they feel is right regardless of party line. POTUS bid in 2012?

Although common sense, good governance, and permitting the constitution to properly stand in the way of government encroachment of individual rights is laudable, it is also his job and sworn duty.

Will the rest of the real Americans in congress please stand up.

this is why the filibuster should have a limit to it

derek bomar wrote: this is why the filibuster should have a limit to it

Will you be in favor of this when the Republicans are in charge?

As a matter of principle the fillibuster should go back to its traditional practice of requiring continous floor speeches.

I was not awar Leiberman only had one ball. Which is one more than most senators.

ccrunner609 wrote: SO THIS THREAD GETS POSTED AND HALF OF MINE DOTN MAKE IT PAST THE ALMIGHTY LJ?

What post? You have no threads waiting for approval.

majorspark wrote:

derek bomar wrote: this is why the filibuster should have a limit to it

Will you be in favor of this when the Republicans are in charge?

As a matter of principle the fillibuster should go back to its traditional practice of requiring continous floor speeches.

yes...i think the minority being able to indefinitely hold up the will of the majority is retarded...elections should matter

Isn't the government designed around protecting the minority numbers?

As a matter of principle the fillibuster should go back to its traditional practice of requiring continous floor speeches.

I agree whole heartedly with that. It has become far too easy to filibuster. Senators might think twice (on both sides) if they knew the cots were coming out and they would have to read from the phone book every time they wanted to filibuster legislation.

Now they just say the word and everything shuts down.

It's all fine and dandy for minority parties to be obstructionists (that's what they do) but we have gotten to the point now that they vote 100% unanimous on everything in opposition where nothing will get done.

All that's going to happen is Republicans take back over, and the Democrats are just going to do the exact same thing to the Republicans the Republicans have been doing to the Democrats the past year now that they have perfected the art of locking down the Senate as best a minority can.

It helps win elections but it is making it impossible to govern the country no matter what party is in power.

Con_Alma wrote: Isn't the government designed around protecting the minority numbers?

protecting is fine, but the minority shouldn't have an indefinite amount of time to hold up something the majority wants passed...put a time limit on it, say 3 months, where the minority party could express there views, get the public informed, and then bring it to a vote. If it's unpopular, the minority will become the majority in the next election.

I believe they should have and do have an infinite amount of time as written by the constructs of procedure in the Senate.

The majority isn't what makes things happen. It takes more than the majority....around 60%!

It is not impossible to govern the country with the current system. It is throttling the amount of things that are getting done legislatively which might be a blessing long term. What truly needs to get done is still getting done. The emotional things tend to be lightening rods for further partisan politics, however.

Con_Alma wrote: I believe they should have and do have an infinite amount of time as written by the constructs of procedure in the Senate.

The majority isn't what makes things happen. It takes more than the majority....around 60%!

It is not impossible to govern the country with the current system. It is throttling the amount of things that are getting done legislatively which might be a blessing long term. What truly needs to get done is still getting done. The emotional things tend to be lightening rods for further partisan politics, however.

it shouldn't though, and its dumb...it literally allows nothing of any substance to be passed, on either side. you have no idea about what "really" needs to get done in the senate, no offense. having one person basically stop a deal because he was for it 3 months ago and now is against it, after all the progress and work and effort put forth to get here is evidence that the system is retarded. Im sorry you think it's fine, but I know if the shoe was on the other foot you'd be bitching. Difference is, I would still think the indefinite filibuster is wrong, and I'd support you.

I have no idea what needs to get done?

Wow.

FYI more than one person is "basically stopping this". Many of the others are so rooted against it that they simply won't waiver ever. Some wouldn't ever consider it because of crappy partisan politics and some believe they are truly representing their constituents. They count too.

How do you know I would be bitching if the shoe was on the other foot? Have you ever seen a post of mine that bitched about governmental procedures? I am intrigued at your perceived understanding of my views.

derek bomar wrote:

majorspark wrote:

derek bomar wrote: this is why the filibuster should have a limit to it

Will you be in favor of this when the Republicans are in charge?

As a matter of principle the fillibuster should go back to its traditional practice of requiring continous floor speeches.

yes...i think the minority being able to indefinitely hold up the will of the majority is retarded...elections should matter

Thankfully, the nation was set up to protect the rights of the minority, not to be run by a simpleminded "majority rules" system.

IggyPride00 wrote: It helps win elections but it is making it impossible to govern the country no matter what party is in power.

In general this wouldn't be a bad thing if the spending stopped as well.

derek bomar wrote:

Con_Alma wrote: Isn't the government designed around protecting the minority numbers?

protecting is fine, but the minority shouldn't have an indefinite amount of time to hold up something the majority wants passed...put a time limit on it, say 3 months, where the minority party could express there views, get the public informed, and then bring it to a vote. If it's unpopular, the minority will become the majority in the next election.

The minority should be able to hold it up especially when the MAJORITY of AMERICANS don't want it. The damage these idiots are doing could be irreversible. Get in the game!

queencitybuckeye wrote:

derek bomar wrote:

majorspark wrote:

derek bomar wrote: this is why the filibuster should have a limit to it

Will you be in favor of this when the Republicans are in charge?

As a matter of principle the fillibuster should go back to its traditional practice of requiring continous floor speeches.

yes...i think the minority being able to indefinitely hold up the will of the majority is retarded...elections should matter

Thankfully, the nation was set up to protect the rights of the minority, not to be run by a simpleminded "majority rules" system.

you're missing the point...i don't want to get rid of the filibuster all together...just put a time limit on it. In the past, with the absence of technology (aka a series of tubes) people didn't really know what was going on. Now, the minority party can relatively quickly get its points across and arguments made and have them heard by the majority of the American public (who actually pay attention). It's pointless now to have an indefinite filibuster due to the fact you can present your case and the public approval will, in the end, protect the rights of the minority. Elections need to matter.

I'm retarded??

That's subjective.

If as you state the current procedures don't allow anything of substance to be passed are you suggesting nothing of substance has been passed in the recent past?

I have talked to people who want health care reform but do not want it defined by the federal government. I would like to see people take on even more responsibility personally than we currently do for our health care. That would be real reform.

There are many things the filibuster does that can be avoided by simply having a bill backed by enough votes. This one doesn't.

The strongest statement I've read on here is from Iggy regarding how elections should matter. I hope we get to a point when US citizens realize that the election vote is more important than any other they cast.

Con_Alma wrote: I'm retarded??

That's subjective.

If as you state the current procedures don't allow anything of substance to be passed are you suggesting nothing of substance has been passed in the recent past?

I have talked to people who want health care reform but do not want it defined by the federal government. I would like to see people take on even more responsibility personally than we currently do for our health care. That would be real reform.

There are many things the filibuster does that can be avoided by simply having a bill backed by enough votes. This one doesn't.

The strongest statement I've read on here is from Iggy regarding how elections should matter. I hope we get to a point when US citizens realize that the election vote is more important than any other they cast.

get your gov't hands off my medicare? and I never called you retarded - It was directed toward quaker

Ahhh. I owe you an apology.

"get your gov't hands off my medicare?..."

I'm sorry I don't really know what you are asking there.

I think that because people may want health care reform doesn't necessarily equate to them being supportive of this bill.

derek bomar wrote:

Con_Alma wrote: I'm retarded??

That's subjective.

If as you state the current procedures don't allow anything of substance to be passed are you suggesting nothing of substance has been passed in the recent past?

I have talked to people who want health care reform but do not want it defined by the federal government. I would like to see people take on even more responsibility personally than we currently do for our health care. That would be real reform.

There are many things the filibuster does that can be avoided by simply having a bill backed by enough votes. This one doesn't.

The strongest statement I've read on here is from Iggy regarding how elections should matter. I hope we get to a point when US citizens realize that the election vote is more important than any other they cast.

get your gov't hands off my medicare? and I never called you retarded - It was directed toward quaker

And if you try to call anyone retarded again, it's a ban.

Good for Joe.

He's getting the brunt of this, but really he's not the only "D" to have this same position.

Even if Joe caved there are still a couple other "Ds" that are still on the other side of this and they wouldn't have "60".

LJ wrote:

derek bomar wrote:

Con_Alma wrote: I'm retarded??

That's subjective.

If as you state the current procedures don't allow anything of substance to be passed are you suggesting nothing of substance has been passed in the recent past?

I have talked to people who want health care reform but do not want it defined by the federal government. I would like to see people take on even more responsibility personally than we currently do for our health care. That would be real reform.

There are many things the filibuster does that can be avoided by simply having a bill backed by enough votes. This one doesn't.

The strongest statement I've read on here is from Iggy regarding how elections should matter. I hope we get to a point when US citizens realize that the election vote is more important than any other they cast.

get your gov't hands off my medicare? and I never called you retarded - It was directed toward quaker

And if you try to call anyone retarded again, it's a ban.

my bad I guess

Major props to Joe or anyone else that can effectively derail this piece of garbage.