Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

GOP finally going to stop obstructing?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • GOP finally going to stop obstructing?

    After bringing government to a halt to the harm of the country for most of Obama's tenure, the GOP might be finally willing to give up this obsctruction.

    'Nuclear Option' Filibuster Showdown Fizzling As GOP Set To Relent On Nominations

    WASHINGTON -- The Senate appeared to be stepping back from the "nuclear option" Tuesday morning, with a group of Republicans led by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) ready to let presidential nominations get past the roadblocks thrown up by the GOP.

    The first test of whether or not there is an agreement will come at about 11 a.m., when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) brings up the nomination of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The GOP has blocked any nominee to the agency since it was created, and although few senators object to Cordray personally, they have prevented his confirmation.

    President Barack Obama named Cordray to the bureau anyway in 2011, placing him in charge with a controversial recess appointment in 2011 that angered the GOP. Yet even a decent number of Republicans seem to think the obstruction has gone too far, and will not balk at Cordray after lengthy private meeting of all senators Monday night, a Democratic aide said on background as negotiations continue. Six other nominees are also on deck, but if Republicans allow consideration of Cordray in the morning, debate will begin on his position for up to eight hours before the others come up.

    The apparent agreement comes after the full Senate met behind closed doors for three and a half hours Monday night. Of course, Republicans could change their minds at any step along the way, and Democrats were still maintaining the threat until all the nominees are approved.

    "The only chance we don't go nuclear is if Republicans give us all seven nominees with no conditions on future action [and] no promises not to go nuclear in the future," the Democratic aide said.

    We'll see. I think we've seen this before so don't get your hopes up on the GOP behaving rationally.

  • #2
    Re: GOP finally going to stop obstructing?

    I summarized in another thread. I'll re-post here.

    The Democratic majority in the Senate is considering using the 'Nuclear Option', which would remove the Republicans ability to filibuster administration nominations to appoint to various government roles, typically judicial, cabinet and, surprise surprise, the National Labor Relations Board.

    The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is an independent agency of the United States government charged with conducting elections for labor union representation and with investigating and remedying unfair labor practices. Unfair labor practices may involve union-related situations or instances of protected concerted activity. The NLRB is governed by a five-person board and a General Counsel, all of whom are appointed by the President with the consent of the Senate. Board members are appointed to five-year terms and the General Counsel is appointed to a four-year term. The General Counsel acts as a prosecutor and the Board acts as an appellate judicial body from decisions of administrative law judges.

    National Labor Relations Board - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    So this board is where labor and business disputes, such as the opening of a Boeing Plant in NC - a right to work state = not union favored, are heard and decided.

    The administration and the unions want to get people friendly to their point of view appointed. As we see from the wikipedia excerpt above, these terms are 5 years, and following administrations can't remove people from the role, at least I don't think so. So these appointments will have a strong influence over the course of union / business relationships. Not insignificant.

    So who are these appointees to the NLRB that the administration wants, but the Republican senators have concerns about?

    President Barack Obama sent to the Senate the nominations of Sharon Block and Richard Griffin Jr. to serve on the National Labor Relations Board.

    Both nominees have been serving on the board since Obama installed them using so-called recess appointments in January 2012.

    But the Washington appeals court last found that the Senate was not truly in recess, for the purposes of such appointments when Obama named them last year.

    The sweeping ruling threw into question dozens of rulings the board issued in 2012 and raised the possibility that other appointments were similarly invalid.

    Block was nominated for a term that expires in December 2014, and Griffin to a term that ends in August 2016.

    Obama Labor Board Nominations Made Official After Controversial Appointments, Court Rejection
    Obama must be really hard pressed by the Unions to get these people nominated to the NLRB. Originally they were recess nominations and were subsequently rules as invalid by the "D.C.-based federal appeals court ruled that Mr. Obama’s acted unconstitutionally in going around the Senate with the recess picks. Chamber weighs in against Obama NLRB picks - Washington Times

    In a case brought by a company involved in an NLRB case, a D.C.-based federal appeals court ruled that Mr. Obama’s acted unconstitutionally in going around the Senate with the recess picks. The three NLRB appointees — Sharon Block, Richard Griffin and Terence Flynn, who has since stepped down — began serving immediately after Mr. Obama acted.

    Now, the case is headed to the Supreme Court for a final decision, and the Chamber asking the justices to uphold the lower court’s ruling, filing a legal brief on behalf of their member, Noel Canning Corp., which originally sued the Obama administration to reverse the controversial recess appointments.
    . . . .
    If the Supreme Court upholds the appeals court’s decision, not only will the NLRB members who were recess appointed be forced to step down, but all of their rulings on labor disputes over the last year and a half could be nullified.

    Chamber weighs in against Obama NLRB picks - Washington Times
    Now this decision is headed to SCOTUS. Depending on the SCOTUS ruling, all of their previous decision might just be undone. Yeah, like the Boeing / SC decision, right?

    Yeah, Obama must be really hard pressed to get these people into the NLRB. So much so that he's also taken the unprecedented step of re-nominating them.

    Obama renominates NLRB members who were ruled invalid in court - The Hill's On The Money

    Obama tries again with National Labor Relations Board - Washington Times

    Why all the push back by the Republicans in the Senate?

    Chamber weighs in against Obama NLRB picks - Washington Times

    Mr. Griffin previously was the general counsel of the International Union of Operating Engineers. As such, he was a leading official at a union that the media has characterized as “tainted by mob ties” with a “history of corruption.” He is also a defendant in an extortion and racketeering case where he is mentioned in the portion of the suit dealing with a cover-up.

    By any fair estimate, the NLRB, which is funded with taxpayer dollars, has operated as a vehicle for Big Labor to achieve bureaucratic victories it could not otherwise see enacted in the legislature. In this discussion, facts matter and union bosses have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in the current administration and its allies, and it has demanded a return that has manifested itself in an activist, hyperpartisan government agency.

    Once Mr. Obama was elected, Gerald McEntee, former president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, told The Washington Times that Big Labor expected the Employee Free (aka “Forced”) Choice Act as “‘payback’ for the labor movement’s massive campaign effort for Mr. Obama and the Democrats.”
    . . . . .
    Time and again, the Obama labor board has set aside precedent and tradition to reward Big Labor at the expense of America’s employees and employers. The NLRB is currently made up of three Democratic appointees and only one who has been confirmed by the U.S. Senate. For 60 years, the board would not issue a major decision without the participation of a member of the minority party, but the Obama board eliminated this practice. The unconstitutional appointments of Mr. Griffin and Ms. Block to the NLRB should be the last straw. Congress must insist that our president live by his sworn oath to uphold the Constitution — not the special interests of his union backers.

    WSZOLEK: The brazen, unconstitutional nominees to the NLRB - Washington Times
    So this is an attempt by the Senate Republicans to prevent yet another IRS or NSA type scandal?

    So now that resistance has been met, and a decision is awaiting SCOTUS to make, and the unprecidented re-nominations were also made, and the big unions need their pay off, we are seeing the administration and their Democratic allies in the Senate starting to pull out the Nuclear Option: eliminate the filibuster which the Senate Republicans have been using to stall these appointments of questionable merit.


    Given all of this information, I agree with the Republicans. Going Nuclear and appointing these people to the NLRB is a bad idea.

    The Lame Stream Media is pawning this off as Obama is trying to get the team he wants, but that's really not it at all. Any closer inspection reveals that the NLRB appointments are union favors that Obama wants to bestow, and as it typical for unions, what would appear to be shady characters with what would appear to be shady backgrounds.

    So Danny, there's a lot more here than just the tired old refrain of 'The Republicans Are Obstructionists'.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #3
      Re: GOP finally going to stop obstructing?

      Remember when you demanded that the Senate be disbanded?

      Would you be happy right now with the House under GOP control and completely unchecked? Which is what your silly demand would have led to.

      You might ignorantly cheer for the nuclear option now, but consider that someday the GOP will again hold the Senate, and the precedent will be set.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #4
        Re: GOP finally going to stop obstructing?

        Originally posted by Danny View Post
        After bringing government to a halt to the harm of the country for most of Obama's tenure, the GOP might be finally willing to give up this obsctruction.

        'Nuclear Option' Filibuster Showdown Fizzling As GOP Set To Relent On Nominations

        We'll see. I think we've seen this before so don't get your hopes up on the GOP behaving rationally.
        This is a crock of beans.

        the GOP has not brought the "government to a halt to the harm of the country" at all. Your BFF, Obama, can't get his way because there are those in the "other" branch of government (a.k.a., the "Checks and balances" according to our constitution) who don't agree "his way" is the best way. You and all the Obama sycophants have the perfect solution: "GOP, you should just go along."

        The party not in power ALWAYS stalls nominees... this is nothing new just because the lord high Obama doesn't like it. Remember back to Robert Bork? Payback is a M'F, isn't it. Remember the lying CIRCUS the democraps put Justice Thomas through back when they thought they could get that uppity African American to simply withdraw? He sure fooled THEM, didn't he... damn uppity NEE-grows.

        So your moral superiority here has spring a leak and your balloon has already deflated. Try NOT hating those with whom you disagree: You'll sleep easier.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #5
          Re: GOP finally going to stop obstructing?

          I wonder, does this sort of partisan bickering happen at the state level? Somehow I doubt it (at least not to this degree of ridiculousness). The federal government exists because the states realized there were some powers they could not feasibly handle on their own. But I think congress is now proving not only that many of their responsibilities should be handled by the states, many of their powers it has assumed cannot even be feasibly handled by the federal government.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #6
            Re: GOP finally going to stop obstructing?

            Love how both parties play this game when they cant RULE THE WORLD

            it is amazing that liberals would actually want this rule change... next election you may get the "women" drive if it is Hillary or the "Latino" surge if it is an Hispanic candidate but once you have run out of "first time" or "categories"... you will not get the up-swell at the poll and will actually have to run on your merits.. thus just like the right you will lose power and have handed your "enemy" a victory worth having for they will RULE THE WORLD

            Finally when in our history has the party not in power not blocked the others appointments? when? Fact is fucking POS like Kennedy blocked Generals he didnt like in the army promotions.. he blocked bork .. he blocked "insert name"... so for either party to think they are getting "obstructed" for they can not RULE THE WORLD again is comedic

            This is a democracy with checks and balances.. maybe the far lefties who cry this crap all the time need to move to a dictatorships in the middle east and get some real ruling where women are beat in the streets with canes and people are still stoned to death ...

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #7
              Re: GOP finally going to stop obstructing?

              Originally posted by MattInFla View Post
              Remember when you demanded that the Senate be disbanded?

              Would you be happy right now with the House under GOP control and completely unchecked? Which is what your silly demand would have led to.

              You might ignorantly cheer for the nuclear option now, but consider that someday the GOP will again hold the Senate, and the precedent will be set.
              Exactly correct Matt. Even the media has caught on.

              Senate Rules Change May Backfire on Democrats - ABC News

              GOP Gains Boost in Bid to Retake Senate

              Nate Silver: Republicans may retake the Senate in 2014 | WashingtonExaminer.com

              Yes, even the much lauded Nate Silver says so at this point.

              For the record, I don't support the nuclear option, as it circumvents required compromises that need to be made in the Senate. Just seems that the unions have pressed the Democrats and the administration so hard to get their choices of appointees into the NLRB that the Democrats are forced to consider the nuclear option. I'd have to say that this level of union pressure must be some sort of record. But then again, the unions are struggling to survive.

              Share of the Work Force in a Union Falls to a 97-Year Low, 11.3%

              Unions suffer steep decline in membership | Fox News

              Why Union Membership is Declining

              Seems that the only way unions can compete in the marketplace of ideas is to have unfair advantages such as 'Card Check' and state and local legislators they get elected to give them whatever they want.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #8
                Re: GOP finally going to stop obstructing?

                I see Danny still looks at obstruction as a one way street...

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #9
                  Re: GOP finally going to stop obstructing?

                  Back when Bush was president and the democraps were the minority party in both houses, the GOP tried to rearrange the rules of the filibuter, too: They backed down for the very reason Matt already pointed out above: They realized one day THEY would be the minority party and would want to avail themselves of the filibuster, too.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #10
                    Re: GOP finally going to stop obstructing?

                    Originally posted by MattInFla View Post
                    You might ignorantly cheer for the nuclear option now, but consider that someday the GOP will again hold the Senate, and the precedent will be set.
                    Which is why ol' Harry hasn't done it... yet.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #11
                      Re: GOP finally going to stop obstructing?

                      Originally posted by AJG View Post
                      The federal government exists because the states realized there were some powers they could not feasibly handle on their own.
                      I wonder if that is true anymore. Given the absence of threatening super powers these days I wonder if the 50 States could do better without the Creature from the distorted Constitution.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #12
                        Re: GOP finally going to stop obstructing?

                        Originally posted by JohnLocke View Post
                        I wonder if that is true anymore. Given the absence of threatening super powers these days I wonder if the 50 States could do better without the Creature from the distorted Constitution.
                        It certainly is debatable, but I think it would be a bad idea if each state had its own patent office or raised its own army.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #13
                          Re: GOP finally going to stop obstructing?

                          Originally posted by AJG View Post
                          It certainly is debatable, but I think it would be a bad idea if each state had its own patent office or raised its own army.
                          Each State already has its own Militia. It would be great if humans could turn the corner on rejecting war as another big government program. Doesnt each sovereign State in the world have their own patent office or are they already grouped somehow, like the Swiss patent office covering all of Europe?

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #14
                            Re: GOP finally going to stop obstructing?

                            Originally posted by Danny View Post
                            After bringing government to a halt to the harm of the country for most of Obama's tenure, the GOP might be finally willing to give up this obsctruction.

                            'Nuclear Option' Filibuster Showdown Fizzling As GOP Set To Relent On Nominations




                            We'll see. I think we've seen this before so don't get your hopes up on the GOP behaving rationally.
                            Yeah, it's the GOP that hasn't passed a budget since Obama took office.

                            Another great drive by post.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #15
                              Re: GOP finally going to stop obstructing?

                              Deal reached.

                              The U.S. Senate advanced Richard Cordray’s nomination to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under a compromise announced by Majority Leader Harry Reid, who said officials were working on final details.

                              The vote today was 71-29, with 60 needed to advance the nomination. Senators will debate the matter for as many as eight hours and hold a final confirmation vote.
                              . . . . .
                              Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona said today that as a condition of the tentative deal, the Senate agreed to expedite the two new NRLB nominees for a confirmation vote by Aug. 1. He said Obama agreed to withdraw the names of the two pending Democratic NRLB nominees if that condition is met.

                              Senate Advances Cordray Nomination for Consumer Bureau - Bloomberg
                              As with most compromises, both sides have to give a little.

                              Seems that the administration will get Cordray for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but will have to submit 2 new appointees for the NLRB.

                              And with that, progress is made, when both sides give a little bit. How the Senate (as well as the House) is supposed to work, not just have the majority run roughshod over the minority.

                              Takes 2 to tango, so neither side is completely blameless nor completely responsible for the conflict.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?

                              Working...
                              X