@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:oralloy wrote:The reason there was no gun control is not because the Republicans blocked it, but because the NRA blocked it.
That doesn't even make any sense.
That is incorrect. The sentence is straightforward and all in order.
I dont care for either party so I dont have any interest in the R/D talk, but I do notice that we are seeing a lot of signs now that Washington is incapable of working. It is an outrage that 51 votes were allowed to change Senate rules when the rule was that 69 votes were needed to change the rules. We are in for heaps of additional turmoil now every time we change who has the majority in the Senate. these cats will spend large amounts of time undoing the other parties work instead of working to make America better. it is more important than ever that we keep government divided, that we never let one party have both houses and the oval office.
@hawkeye10,
Quote:It is an outrage that 51 votes were allowed to change Senate rules when the rule was that 69 votes were needed to change the rules.
Which rule required 69 votes to change rules?
Rule V only requires a one day notice before rules can be changed. There is no vote requirement other than the rules can be changed without notification by unanimous consent
@parados,
parados wrote:
Quote:It is an outrage that 51 votes were allowed to change Senate rules when the rule was that 69 votes were needed to change the rules.
Which rule required 69 votes to change rules?
my mistake. 67.
Quote:Before November 2013, Senate rules required a three-fifths majority ("duly chosen and sworn"[2] -- usually 60 votes) to end debate on a bill, nomination or other proposal; they also require a two-thirds majority ("present and voting"[2] -- 67 or fewer votes) for a change to the Senate rules
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option
I dont know nor do I care what the name of the rule was. The point that it was violated is the relevant point.
@hawkeye10,
You are confused hawkeye. Rule changes are not bills, nominations or proposals.
@parados,
parados wrote:You are confused hawkeye. Rule changes are not bills, nominations or proposals.
I don't perceive any confusion. He quoted what appears to be the rule for changing the rules. I don't know enough about the rules to know whether his quote is correct, but I doubt he is confused about what he is quoting.
If the Democrats really violated the process for changing the rules, I wonder if the Republicans could sue and have the courts nullify the rule change?
@oralloy,
parados is one of those people who has no interest in truth, he spends all of his time indulging his imagination, he thus sees only what he wants to see.
Democrats in the Senate changed the rules so it only takes 51 votes (out of 100) instead of 60 to end a filibuster and proceed to a full vote. They specified that it only applies to judicial and executive nominations and does not apply to Supreme Court nominations or passing bills. Republicans, currently in the minority, understandably objected and then said a bunch of exaggerated crazy things. I think Rush Limbaugh compared it to legalizing rape. Republicans have vowed when they get the majority, they will reverse the change and go back to the way it was because they are the party of tradition and restraint. LOL JUST KIDDING! They said, "We disagree with what you did so **** YOU, when we get in power we'll take it even further and make it apply to everything!" So in other words, Republicans fully support what Democrats just did and were glad the Dems took the bad PR by doing it instead of them. There, I just explained politics.
And now I'm going to the gym to let out the anger this just built up!
@coldjoint,
coldjoint wrote:
Quote:And now I'm going to the gym to let out the anger this just built up!
Going to balls on chin and do reps?
That was before the gym but you wouldn't know anything about that, I mean not having any balls and all.
@coldjoint,
coldjoint wrote:
Quote:That was before the gym but you wouldn't know anything about that, I mean not having any balls and all. Smile
Sure thing, sperm breath.
Now there’s an intelligent comeback.
Maybe someday you’ll post something intelligent on this board but I’m not waiting for that to happen anytime soon.
@coldjoint,
coldjoint wrote:
Quote:Now there’s an intelligent comeback.
You mean you don't swallow? Do you do everything poorly? Your posts only reflect the usual rhetoric, it figures everything else about you would be just as mediocre.
I prefer a facial it’s less expensive and less painful then a chemical peel.
Now why not drop the pink passion font and post using your real account.
@coldjoint,
coldjoint wrote:
Quote:I prefer a facial it’s less expensive and less painful then a chemical peel.
Anyone that has to advertise their sexual preferences on the internet needs help. I ,myself, don't care if you die from AIDS. But there could be someone out there that does, or like on this forum at least say they do.
That’s just another one of your idiotic comments, read a book sometime.
I’ll advertise my sexual preference anywhere anytime I like. In fact I can suck a Puerto Ricans brains out, try it sometime, at least then you’d have one.
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:parados is one of those people who has no interest in truth, he spends all of his time indulging his imagination, he thus sees only what he wants to see.
I suspect he was simply mistaken.
@coldjoint,
coldjoint wrote:I ,myself, don't care if you die from AIDS.
This is sad. Typical of online altercations, but still sad. When you've watched a loved one succumb to a painful terminal illness for over a year (liver cancer, not AIDS), you can't help be saddened by this sort of exchange. It has nothing to do with politics.
Take care, guys.
