Current Events

TOPICS:

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

123 | 124 | 125

 ... 487

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next

FearTheReaper

FearTheReaper

NEWSWIRE

I'm lost

NOV 18, 2006 02:00 PM

Senator Mitch McConnell, who will take over as minority leader on January 4th, is demanding the Democrats do what Bush wants or he will use his power to filibuster next year. May I be the first to call this gentleman a fucking twunt. I understand you may reverse positions on things from time to time, but the Republicans were talking about using the so-called “Nuclear Option” earlier this year to end the filibuster. Now, horribly weakened, they realize it is their only effective tool and they embrace it totally.

McConnell told the Federalist Society yesterday that Republicans will have 49 seats in the Senate and it takes 60 to end a filibuster. He then tossed out a threat.


If the "Democrats want our cooperation, they'll give the president's judicial nominees an up-or-down vote," McConnell said.


He is of course referring to Bush’s recent example of how he was going to work with the new Democratic controlled Senate by nominating 6 crazy right wing judges. All of the judges had been previously submitted and none made it to the floor for a vote. It was just another example of Bush saying one thing and doing the opposite. In this case, following a press conference saying he would embrace bipartisan efforts by sending a giant "Fuck you" to the Democrats.


Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said none of the six will be confirmed. "It's a real slap in the face," he said by telephone. "It basically makes you think the talk of bipartisanship is just talk."


Earlier this year the Democrats were blocking Bush’s right wing judges and Republicans Senators were furious. Majority Leader Bill Frist came close to calling for a vote on the “Nuclear Option,” which would have allowed for only 51 Senators to end a filibuster instead of 60. A group of 14 “moderate” Republicans and Democrats put an end to the stand off by coming to an agreement and allowing some of the judges to be confirmed.

During the heated “Nuclear Option” debate, McConnell went on Fox News in favor of ending the filibuster.


HUME: Let me ask you about…the potential rules change that the Senate could do by a simple majority, which would disable the filibuster for the purposes of voting on potential judges. Where does this matter stand, in terms of negotiating a solution short of taking what has been called the "nuclear option"?

MCCONNELL: Well, I had hoped, with a new Democratic leader and a new Congress, that there might be some willingness on the other side to take a look at the tactics that were employed in the previous Congress for the first time in history…

What Senate Republicans are contemplating doing and what I think they should do is to get us back to the precedents that were established prior to the last Congress, in which judicial appointments were given an up-or-down — that is, a majority — vote.

HUME: But the key question here, though, Senator, is, if you're prepared to do this — you believe that Senator Frist should go ahead and do this — first of all, do you have the votes?

MCCONNELL: Well, obviously, you would need 51 votes to do it. I'm confident that we would have 51 votes if the majority leader decides to do it…

I believe it should be done if we cannot get some accommodation from the Democrats.


Big talk from a man who was in the majority but now finds himself in the minority. Suddenly he loves the filibuster. The Republicans should take their last couple of months in control to pass the “Nuclear Option” and see how that plays out.

DieWhiteGirls

DieWhiteGirls

Madison, WI
July 2005

NOV 18, 2006 03:11 PM

Why is it that the majority of politicians act like 4 year olds?

darwinsjoke

darwinsjoke

Virginia Beach, VA
July 2003

NOV 18, 2006 03:13 PM

Our dear leader's judicial nominees will get an upperdown vote in the Judiciary Committee, 9-7 against.

JUSTblue

justblue

I'm lost
January 2006

NOV 18, 2006 03:20 PM

Something tells me that when the tides change and it's Democrats as the minority, that we don't stoop so fucking low. At least we don't say it like we're on the playground at recess.

bastards.

Holden_Caulfield

Holden_Caulfield

Ann Arbor, MI
April 2004

NOV 18, 2006 03:46 PM

Here's a good modern definition of "Republican": 1. Conservative asshole; 2. The epitome of duplicity.

JohnnyForeigner

JohnnyForeigner

United Kingdom
July 2003

NOV 18, 2006 03:51 PM

FearTheReaper said:
twunt



Surely you mean twankunt? confused

Gringo

Gringo

Spokane, WA
May 2006

NOV 18, 2006 04:06 PM

DieWhiteGirls said:
Why is it that the majority of politicians act like 4 year olds?


Not sure although I wish they'd all just hold their breath instead......forever.

Making threats like that will most likely result in more Republican seats being lost the next election. At least Frist had the sense to end the bullshit.

turin

turin

Denver, CO
October 2003

NOV 18, 2006 04:07 PM

and this, boys and girls of the republican party, is why checks and balances are a good idea!

shouldn't they have to know how the government works before they're allowed to be in charge?

Gringo

Gringo

Spokane, WA
May 2006

NOV 18, 2006 04:11 PM

turin said:
and this, boys and girls of the republican party, is why checks and balances are a good idea!

shouldn't they have to know how the government works before they're allowed to be in charge?


If you read the story in its entirety - you may see that both sides are playing games.

MschfMayhemSoap

MschfMayhemSoap

Phoenix, AZ
April 2006

NOV 18, 2006 04:29 PM

Is it just me, or should there be a Majority of Independents in the House from now on? Cause this childishness shown by both parties just seems retarded to me.

Not2Bright

Not2Bright

Sumter, SC
July 2006

NOV 18, 2006 05:28 PM

DieWhiteGirls said:
Why is it that the majority of politicians act like 4 year olds?


+1
I was going to say spinelss douche-bags that are puppets of their campain contributors, but that'll do.

Not2Bright

Not2Bright

Sumter, SC
July 2006

NOV 18, 2006 05:31 PM

FashionFuneral said:

FearTheReaper said:
twunt



Surely you mean twankunt? confused



They don't give a pronunciation of twankunt.

Is it like 'twaincunt' (I failed phonetics)

Vanessa

Vanessa

SUICIDEGIRL

USA

NOV 18, 2006 05:34 PM

the word "filibuster" has always made me giggle.

muy5

muy5

I'm lost
September 2006

NOV 18, 2006 05:40 PM

turin said:
and this, boys and girls of the republican party, is why checks and balances are a good idea!.


It's quite obvious that the checks and balances don't work, because for the last 50+ years, regardless of who has been in power, they've been writing checks that we don't have any balance to pay. The anti-federalists had the right idea, keep the central state weak.

muy5

muy5

I'm lost
September 2006

NOV 18, 2006 05:42 PM

DieWhiteGirls said:
Why is it that the majority of politicians act like 4 year olds?


The better question is what kind of idiot voters elect them in the first place.

turin

turin

Denver, CO
October 2003

NOV 18, 2006 05:43 PM

TheGringo said:

turin said:
and this, boys and girls of the republican party, is why checks and balances are a good idea!

shouldn't they have to know how the government works before they're allowed to be in charge?


If you read the story in its entirety - you may see that both sides are playing games.



of course they are! I don't care for the democrats much more than I do for the republican party in general; they're all politicians, unfortunately.

but with trying to weaken the filibuster, abuse of signing statements, over-enthusiasm for the patriot act, stacking the courts and whining about activist judges, justifying illegal activities with national security, and so on for five years straight, it's been mostly the republicans who've been attempting to undermine the structure of our government.

I've just felt the entire time that nothing could be more short-sighted. did the republican leadership really think they'd be in charge forever? that's just not how it's ever been, and all these safeguards are there for a reason.

DieWhiteGirls

DieWhiteGirls

Madison, WI
July 2005

NOV 18, 2006 06:00 PM

muy5 said:

DieWhiteGirls said:
Why is it that the majority of politicians act like 4 year olds?


The better question is what kind of idiot voters elect them in the first place.



Well, when you have a child running against a child 90% of the time, you're not going to be putting any geniuses in office, regardless of party.

NickFaust

NickFaust

USA
April 2004

NOV 18, 2006 06:35 PM

muy5 said:

turin said:
and this, boys and girls of the republican party, is why checks and balances are a good idea!.


It's quite obvious that the checks and balances don't work, because for the last 50+ years, regardless of who has been in power, they've been writing checks that we don't have any balance to pay. The anti-federalists had the right idea, keep the central state weak.



And here comes one from left field ladies and gentlemen!

Colinism

Colinism

Atlanta, GA
July 2005

NOV 18, 2006 06:47 PM

turin said:

TheGringo said:

turin said:
and this, boys and girls of the republican party, is why checks and balances are a good idea!

shouldn't they have to know how the government works before they're allowed to be in charge?


If you read the story in its entirety - you may see that both sides are playing games.



of course they are! I don't care for the democrats much more than I do for the republican party in general; they're all politicians, unfortunately.

but with trying to weaken the filibuster, abuse of signing statements, over-enthusiasm for the patriot act, stacking the courts and whining about activist judges, justifying illegal activities with national security, and so on for five years straight, it's been mostly the republicans who've been attempting to undermine the structure of our government.

I've just felt the entire time that nothing could be more short-sighted. did the republican leadership really think they'd be in charge forever? that's just not how it's ever been, and all these safeguards are there for a reason.



Both parties oncein power assume that they will be there forever.......

turin

turin

Denver, CO
October 2003

NOV 18, 2006 07:24 PM

Colinism said:

turin said:

TheGringo said:

turin said:
and this, boys and girls of the republican party, is why checks and balances are a good idea!

shouldn't they have to know how the government works before they're allowed to be in charge?


If you read the story in its entirety - you may see that both sides are playing games.



of course they are! I don't care for the democrats much more than I do for the republican party in general; they're all politicians, unfortunately.

but with trying to weaken the filibuster, abuse of signing statements, over-enthusiasm for the patriot act, stacking the courts and whining about activist judges, justifying illegal activities with national security, and so on for five years straight, it's been mostly the republicans who've been attempting to undermine the structure of our government.

I've just felt the entire time that nothing could be more short-sighted. did the republican leadership really think they'd be in charge forever? that's just not how it's ever been, and all these safeguards are there for a reason.



Both parties oncein power assume that they will be there forever.......



I'm convinced that power almost always makes normal people insane.

ChiTownGuy32

ChiTownGuy32

Colfax, IA
October 2005

NOV 18, 2006 07:31 PM

fucking twunt isn't nearly harsh enough for this fucktard...why do all politicians think we are stupid and have no memory? puke

Chainlink

Chainlink

Key West, FL
August 2005

NOV 18, 2006 09:00 PM

ChiTownGuy32 said:
fucking twunt isn't nearly harsh enough for this fucktard...why do all politicians think we are stupid and have no memory? puke



I can't remember

NickFaust

NickFaust

USA
April 2004

NOV 18, 2006 09:15 PM

Colinism said:

turin said:

TheGringo said:

turin said:
and this, boys and girls of the republican party, is why checks and balances are a good idea!

shouldn't they have to know how the government works before they're allowed to be in charge?


If you read the story in its entirety - you may see that both sides are playing games.



of course they are! I don't care for the democrats much more than I do for the republican party in general; they're all politicians, unfortunately.

but with trying to weaken the filibuster, abuse of signing statements, over-enthusiasm for the patriot act, stacking the courts and whining about activist judges, justifying illegal activities with national security, and so on for five years straight, it's been mostly the republicans who've been attempting to undermine the structure of our government.

I've just felt the entire time that nothing could be more short-sighted. did the republican leadership really think they'd be in charge forever? that's just not how it's ever been, and all these safeguards are there for a reason.



Both parties oncein power assume that they will be there forever.......



Well. Actually, no, that is not true.

That's' why the nuclear option never played, because, for all their bluster, the Repugs knew that someday they would be in the minority and they would want to use the filibuster

meggle

meggle

Berkeley, CA
November 2002

NOV 18, 2006 09:17 PM

this is so shocking....

Reaver

Reaver

I'm lost
August 2003

NOV 18, 2006 11:23 PM

Never would the Dems stoop so low as to filibuster, I can never dream of a time they would do such a thing.

Never would a Democrat do something that flew in the face of bipartisanship!

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next