RE: senate oks limited response

RE: senate oks limited response (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Politesub53 -> RE: senate oks limited response (9/4/2013 4:30:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie FR- There is an opportunity here for both the Senate and the House. Vote no across the board and see if Obama will honor that, being supposedly the democratic will of the People of Rome. Surely the thing to wish for is your Politicians to do what they think is right and not just score points off of the President ? [8\|]

Politesub53 -> RE: senate oks limited response (9/4/2013 4:32:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Maybe they realise their posting history is for all to see Shhhhs....... Its a secret.

DesideriScuri -> RE: senate oks limited response (9/4/2013 4:34:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie FR- There is an opportunity here for both the Senate and the House. Vote no across the board and see if Obama will honor that, being supposedly the democratic will of the People of Rome. Surely the thing to wish for is your Politicians to do what they think is right and not just score points off of the President ? [8\|] Aw, ain't it just cute when someone still thinks that politicians do what's right instead of going after political capital (which would include going after anything that they could stand to gain off, not just the President)? [8D]

Yachtie -> RE: senate oks limited response (9/4/2013 4:37:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Surely the thing to wish for is your Politicians to do what they think is right and not just score points off of the President ? [8\|] Counting coo off each other is an American tradition. As to doing what is right, that is debatable. But at the moment it appears the majority of the people do not wish to embroil ourselves in this quagmire. So, should politicians do according to what is observably heard from the People?

DesideriScuri -> RE: senate oks limited response (9/4/2013 4:45:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Surely the thing to wish for is your Politicians to do what they think is right and not just score points off of the President ? [8\|] Counting coo off each other is an American tradition. As to doing what is right, that is debatable. But at the moment it appears the majority of the people do not wish to embroil ourselves in this quagmire. So, should politicians do according to what is observably heard from the People? You mean they are supposed to represent those that elected them?!?! Since when? [:D]

Politesub53 -> RE: senate oks limited response (9/4/2013 4:51:34 PM)
Ive long since stated my disdain for Politicians grandstanding, especially on such serious issues.

TheHeretic -> RE: senate oks limited response (9/4/2013 6:31:11 PM)
Let's correct the misunderstanding represented in the thread title, shall we? Easy mistake. It seems even some of the reporters don't recall their Schoolhouse Rock, because I saw it presented in a couple headlines too. The Senate has not approved jack shit. The appropriate Senate committee voted on the issue, and passed it on a 10 - 7 vote (love the Dem who just voted "present" though) and that allows the matter to move forward for a vote in the full Senate. The same thing will need to happen in the House. Both support and opposition spread across party lines. Since we are edjumicating some of our international participants here, I'll point out that an awful lot of stupid shit proposed legislation (including most of the crap that drives some into a complete tizzy) never even makes to a vote in the committee (dies in committee), much less moving forward into the full chamber for debate and a vote.

DaddySatyr -> RE: senate oks limited response (9/4/2013 6:36:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Let's correct the misunderstanding represented in the thread title, shall we? Easy mistake. It seems even some of the reporters don't recall their Schoolhouse Rock, because I saw it presented in a couple headlines too. The Senate has not approved jack shit. The appropriate Senate committee voted on the issue, and passed it on a 10 - 7 vote (love the Dem who just voted "present" though) and that allows the matter to move forward for a vote in the full Senate. The same thing will need to happen in the House. Both support and opposition spread across party lines. Since we are edjumicating some of our international participants here, I'll point out that an awful lot of stupid shit proposed legislation (including most of the crap that drives some into a complete tizzy) never even makes to a vote in the committee (dies in committee), much less moving forward into the full chamber for debate and a vote. [sm=modxiiswatching.gif]How I hope and pray that I will but, today, I am still just a bill ...

JeffBC -> RE: senate oks limited response (9/4/2013 6:50:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Surely the thing to wish for is your Politicians to do what they think is right and not just score points off of the President ? [8\|] Sure, I wish for that. But it's kind of like wishing I was Jean Luc Picard. It's a fantasy. Or, more accurately, I have 100% confidence that they will do what they think is "right". It's just the way they evaluate "right" and "wrong" has nothing to do with anything except the acquisition and maintenance of power.

TheHeretic -> RE: senate oks limited response (9/4/2013 9:00:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Surely the thing to wish for is your Politicians to do what they think is right and not just score points off of the President ? [8\|] But what if scoring points off the President is the right thing to do? [;)] I think we will see more of that in this vote than is often the case. Partisan douchebags of both sides will still behave like partisan douchebags on both sides, but the party leadership will not be issuing directives, and sending out the Whips. I hope it is rejected. I've already emailed my Congressman and Senators, and will probably follow up with a call to the DC office for the Congressman tomorrow (I'll just talk to a dumbass intern, most likely, but they can add the call to the tally). This is an awful atrocity, but, unless we are willing to embrace the position I spelled out on another thread, it is not a job for the United States.

TheHeretic -> RE: senate oks limited response (9/5/2013 6:39:15 PM)
So I made my call to the DC office of my Congressman this morning. Quick, polite, and the young lady I spoke with didn't seem like a complete dumbass. I expressed my desire to see my representative vote in opposition to us getting involved in another ME mess, and asked if she was getting other calls. I was told that I was very much not alone, and that the ratio was better than 10-1 against a strike. Whatever the Senate may do, when they do it, passage in the House is not looking very promising at the moment, according to the linked article at Politico. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/obama-syria-house-vote-96347.html

midogman686 -> RE: senate oks limited response (9/5/2013 6:53:11 PM)
Sen. Feinstein was on tv tonight saying that her office was being hit with calls, with about the same 10-1 against ratio. She then trotted out the old "but we have much more access to information then 'they' do.". She indicated she's going to vote in agreement with going in, despite her constituents, using that rationale. Damn, whether you have one side blindly covering O's ass, or the other side scoring partisan points off him, those inside the beltway jerkoffs seem to have forgotten that it's AMERICANS that stand to get killed if they do it. And, yeah, I have "skin in the game" .......3 kids of "army age".

JeffBC -> RE: senate oks limited response (9/5/2013 6:54:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: midogman686 Sen. Feinstein was on tv tonight saying that her office was being hit with calls, with about the same 10-1 against ratio. She then trotted out the old "but we have much more access to information then 'they' do.". She indicated she's going to vote in agreement with going in, despite her constituents, using that rationale. How interesting. I'll have to look that up. Got a link by chance? I used to be a Republican until they pulled the same shit. As far as I'm concerned, Feinstein just said flat out, "I don't represent you and I don't want to represent you." That's neat and all but it also means she doesn't want my vote.

midogman686 -> RE: senate oks limited response (9/5/2013 6:57:09 PM)
Nice thought on calling your reps and voicing your opinions.......but here in MI that little weasel Levin is retiring anyway, so like he could give a shit.

midogman686 -> RE: senate oks limited response (9/5/2013 7:00:37 PM)
Sorry Jeff, just caught it in passing, between chores. When I get a second to breathe, while try to find it and send it to you. (OT- hearing something like that, and the sesultant fury, can really make work go faster)

TheHeretic -> RE: senate oks limited response (9/5/2013 8:02:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: midogman686 Nice thought on calling your reps and voicing your opinions.......but here in MI that little weasel Levin is retiring anyway, so like he could give a shit. You've got three to go after. I knew the emails to Boxer and Feinstein were a waste of time, but McCarthy might come through. Buck McKeon would be an interesting one to watch (I won't be watching - I'm going to go get fucked up in the redwoods for a few days). He's been one of the Republicans beating the war drum from early on, and I have it from a reliable source that the calls to his district offices are more like 95% opposed. His last re-election wasn't nearly as comfortable as he'd have liked. His vote will come down to whether he wants to stay in Congress, or move on to a job with a defense contractor.

DesideriScuri -> RE: senate oks limited response (9/5/2013 9:35:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic So I made my call to the DC office of my Congressman this morning. Quick, polite, and the young lady I spoke with didn't seem like a complete dumbass. I expressed my desire to see my representative vote in opposition to us getting involved in another ME mess, and asked if she was getting other calls. I was told that I was very much not alone, and that the ratio was better than 10-1 against a strike. Whatever the Senate may do, when they do it, passage in the House is not looking very promising at the moment, according to the linked article at Politico. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/obama-syria-house-vote-96347.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/where-lawmakers-stand-on-syria/ This is a link I listed before. It's been updated, so that's pretty cool. I'll do the breakdowns again. Senate Against - 14 (3 D's, 11 R's) Lean No - 10 (2 D's, 7 R's, 1 I) Undec. - 53 (32 D's, 20 R's, 1 I) For - 23 (15 D's, 8 R's) House (371 out of 435 shown) Against - 103 (25 D's, 78 R's) Lean No - 102 (29 D's, 73 R's) Undec. - 142 (95 D's, 47 R's) For - 24 (16 D, 8 R's) The changes from when I posted this on the 3rd: Senate 10 more Against (was 4 R's) 7 fewer Lean no (was 5 D, 11 R, 1 I) 6 fewer Undecideds (was 36 D, 22 R, 1 I) 3 more For (was 11 D, 9 R) House (only 211 showing) Against - 67 more (was 14 D, 22 R) Lean No - 35 more (was 19 D, 48 R) Undec. - 83 more (was 55 D, 36 R) For - 7 more (was 9 D, 8 R) If all those leaning no vote against and the undecideds and those not showing all vote For, the House will still pass the legislation 230 - 205.

mnottertail -> RE: senate oks limited response (9/6/2013 6:44:27 AM)
doesnt the senate have to get 60% to avoid filibuster, because it will run to a filibuster?

DesideriScuri -> RE: senate oks limited response (9/6/2013 6:59:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail doesnt the senate have to get 60% to avoid filibuster, because it will run to a filibuster? Apply the same assumptions to the Senate numbers and you have 76 in favor. But, the post I was replying to specifically mentioned: quote: Whatever the Senate may do, when they do it, passage in the House is not looking very promising at the moment, according to the linked article at Politico.

mnottertail -> RE: senate oks limited response (9/6/2013 7:03:42 AM)
Yeah, those are large monlithic assumptions though, I doubt 2/3rds is a cakewalk.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125