Well DUH! =)

Wolfinstl: Well DUH! =)

This.

/still voting Democrat

What, me ineffectual?

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAH

D-Disappointed

Yeah, like anyone really thought congress could live with pay as you go.

Well, they didn't get much of it done, that's for sure.

But didn't they get the minimum wage passed?

Cowboy Spencer: But didn't they get the minimum wage passed?

When your crowning achievement is "feel good" legislation (even if you think minimum wage laws actually do something, most states have their own higher minimum wages already), then you've failed... Though they certainly failed far less than the Republicans did in the six years before that.

There are still large numbers of non-Iraqis with guns in Iraq, and therefore the illusion of democracy in America is over.

This genius, John Bruhns, needs a quick civics (and math) lesson.

From the article:
The Democrats are the majority party of Congress, and in 2008 they better start acting like it or they will only ensure their own demise.

From Wikipedia:
Because Senate rules require a 60-vote majority to end debate under most circumstances, a minority of 41 senators can prevent a final vote on most proposals, effectively defeating them.

From the first grade:
51 (Democratic Senators) is less than 60
49 (Republican Senators) is greater than 41

whiteylexus: Because Senate rules require a 60-vote majority to end debate under most circumstances, a minority of 41 senators can prevent a final vote on most proposals, effectively defeating them.

That's only because Reid insists on a 60-vote majority to avoid potential republican filibusters. Which is why any democrat proposed legislation requires 60 votes to pass, but most republican proposed legislations only 51.

Republicans have repeatedly suggested they'd filibuster any legislation they don't like. Any democrat suggesting a filibuster, on the other way, gets ostracized by its own party (see Dodd). Blame Reid for being sold out.

oh, its okay, we'll vote for Billary, and then we will have more of the same bs.
At least with Giuliani we know what we get.
The guy has our security as his primary goal, not shoving socialism down our throats until America chokes on this liberal goosestepping.

Dems will vote for Billary, thats a given, and as usual they will be shooting themselves in the foot hoping the cowardly way out of war will be the best.
Giuliani at least knows what its like to stand tall in the face of Islamofacism when it knocks on our door.
/I'm a liberal, yet I can see the writing on the wall.
//Sad that Dems are so pathetic.
///Sad enough that i'll be switching my vote this year to a Republican for the first time.
////not sad enough for slashies!
//GIULIANI '08 FTW!

No bill reaches the floor of either house without the Chairman of the revelant committee allowing it to pass through.
DUH!
The democrats know this.
They think we're stupid with this 60 vote bull.
It requires 51 senate votes to pass a bill.
60 votes are needed to break a filibuster.
2/3 majority to override a veto.
If you want to end the war you bottle funding in committee. If no spending bill reaches the floor, no filibuster, no 60 vote margin is needed.
If you want other things, you hold hearings and INVESTIGATE the administration, the majority party controls what hearings are held, it's amazing how they start to respond.
The democrats are losing support fast.
The only winning combo is Edwards/Obama.
Democrats should think twice however.
Better they control congress
and let the republicans lose the war and the economy as president...just my opinion.

on another note...

The veto power of the president is wrong. It gives one person the power to over rule the diliberations of the people's representatives. If ever there is a new constitutional convention
that one issue needs addressing

Satyagraha: The veto power of the president is wrong. It gives one person the power to over rule the diliberations of the people's representatives. If ever there is a new constitutional convention
that one issue needs addressing

You're a moron.

It certainly has been another disappointing year. I guess in a few nights, I'll give the old year a "Good Riddance!" like I've been doing for most of this decade.

FuriousGeorge945: Satyagraha: The veto power of the president is wrong. It gives one person the power to over rule the diliberations of the people's representatives. If ever there is a new constitutional convention
that one issue needs addressing

You're a moron.

Seconded.

Leishu: FuriousGeorge945: Satyagraha: The veto power of the president is wrong. It gives one person the power to over rule the diliberations of the people's representatives. If ever there is a new constitutional convention
that one issue needs addressing

You're a moron.

Seconded.

Thirded, fourthed and fifthed

hillary4real: Sad enough that i'll be switching my vote this year to a Republican for the first time.

Hahahaha, don't lie. Liar.

Incidentally, how are you, Mr. Registered-Ten-Days-Ago? How's that Hillary fixation working out for you?

lol. crickets.

Satyagraha: The veto power of the president is wrong. It gives one person the power to over rule the diliberations of the people's representatives. If ever there is a new constitutional convention
that one issue needs addressing

You're a moron.

Seconded.

Thirded, fourthed and fifthed

Add me as to that opinion as well- whatever number that makes.

Ben Franklin, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Roger Sherman, William Patterson, and a host of other signers like a word with you. Not to mention the presidents who used that veto: Washington, Monroe, Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, etc.

PerfectlyCromulent: Leishu: FuriousGeorge945: Satyagraha: The veto power of the president is wrong. It gives one person the power to over rule the diliberations of the people's representatives. If ever there is a new constitutional convention
that one issue needs addressing

You're a moron.

Seconded.

Thirded, fourthed and fifthed

Sixthed....and somehow in my head I hear that in such a gay voice, but it just sounds so fabulous! NTTIAWWT.

I guess i "fifth and a halfed" it.

DUH AND DUH !

Despite what you read on the internets, to be effective, congressional leadership have to work on consensus building and compromises to ever get anything done. It's always been that way no matter which side's in power and some former leaders got it while others did not.

Problem is, lately each side plays brinkmanship games that go nowhere. They do it to appease the extreme left and right that make so much noise? (I'm looking at you, digg)

So this year's leadership can lay claim to exactly one substantive achievement: passing a rise in minimum wage. The entire rest of the year was wasted on nagging, arguing, showboating, grandstanding and passing a few bills they knew full well were going to be vetoed.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Oh, and PerfectlyCromulent, I'd like to take it one step further and give the President a line-item veto.

betona
Oh, and PerfectlyCromulent, I'd like to take it one step further and give the President a line-item veto.

Never has there been a better example of why we should not grant to the executive the power to selectively edit bills passed by Congress than the Presidency of George W. Bush.

betona: Oh, and PerfectlyCromulent, I'd like to take it one step further and give the President a line-item veto.

Oh sure, so Bush can cut spending on everything his buddies don't make money on? I don't think so.

I disagree, mrexcess, and I'm not thinking about for the next few months; I'm thinking about for the next 100 years.

Governors in 43 states have long had the power, and to my knowledge, every president in modern times has asked for it. I see this as a way to carve out bridges to nowhere that get stuck in the middle of defense bills.

betona: Governors in 43 states have long had the power, and to my knowledge, every president in modern times has asked for it. I see this as a way to carve out bridges to nowhere that get stuck in the middle of defense bills.

On the other hand, you could end up with everything BUT the Bridge to Nowhere cut out. Be careful what you wish for.

Satyagraha:
The only winning combo is Edwards/Obama.


You're probably right. ("Winning" to mean not "winning the election" but "winning something good for America".)

But you're still an doorknob about that whole "vetoes are wrong" thing.

A vote for ron paul is a vote for becoming a province of china.
A vote for a democract is a vote cast by an idiot.

helloooooo..... lol. crickets. chirp. chirp.


/ahhh such is Fark.

betona
. I see this as a way to carve out bridges to nowhere that get stuck in the middle of defense bills.

That's one potential effect, and by itself that would be fine, but it's far from the only one. You'd essentially be radically altering the balance of powers between executive and legislative branches, virtually requiring a supermajority in order to pass any piece of legislation that the President doesn't like. It's too open to abuse by a President, an office that already has quite enough power.

Ahh, the halcyon days....

What the Hell?

hillary4real


Man, thats some serious trolling.

No one believes you're a democrat.

In fact, no one believes anything you say.

Time for a new alt.

Carry on.

Yeah, thanks for driving me into the arms of a Republican, assface Demos.

hillary4real: oh, its okay, we'll vote for Billary, and then we will have more of the same bs.
At least with Giuliani we know what we get.
The guy has our security as his primary goal, not shoving socialism down our throats until America chokes on this liberal goosestepping.

Dems will vote for Billary, thats a given, and as usual they will be shooting themselves in the foot hoping the cowardly way out of war will be the best.
Giuliani at least knows what its like to stand tall in the face of Islamofacism when it knocks on our door.
/I'm a LIEberal, yet I can see the writing on the wall.
//Sad that Dems are so pathetic.
///Sad enough that i'll be switching my vote this year to a Republican for the first time.
////not sad enough for slashies!
//GIULIANI '08 FTW!

FTFY

"Our object was not to get you into power because we are Democrats - our object was to get you into power so you actually do something," he said. "And if you don't, we are not going to stand up and keep you.

Howard Dean (new window)

archerjoe: "Our object was not to get you into power because we are Democrats - our object was to get you into power so you actually do something," he said. "And if you don't, we are not going to stand up and keep you.

Howard Dean (new window)

(applause)

jojostan: Ahh, the halcyon days....

Brazil was a missive against totalitarianism. You know - today's Republican party.

See also 1984,V for Vendetta, etc.