A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry
More filibustering...shock.
Posted: Mar 6, 2013
If Republicans have hit some kind of filibuster record? How many filibusters since Obama took office now?
;
Why can't *I* filibuster every time I - don't get what I want?
[ In Reply To ..]When all else fails, I'm going to try rambling endlessly.
You know, if it did still require them rambling endlessly, I'd have a lot more respect - for them.
[ In Reply To ..]Even the ones I fundamentally disagree with. That's no longer the case, though; no long floor speech is required anymore, but if it was, that might help break the gridlock.
Fix the Filibuster
The Problem
Made famous by the 1939 film Mr.Smith Goes to Washington and infamous by senators who used it to block civil rights legislation, the filibuster was initially conceived as a way to prevent a Senate majority from steamrolling the minority. As long as a senator kept talking on the floor, a bill could not move forward unless a supermajority of senators voted to end debate. For much of the 20th century, the Senate required a two-thirds majority vote (a device known as cloture) to break a filibuster. In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture to three-fifths, or 60 of the current hundred senators.
The filibuster has been used for good and for ill, but for most of the Senate's history, it was rare, and it required members to stand up for hours on end to make their case. Neither is true anymore.
In the first 50 years of the filibuster, it was used only 35 times. In the last two years alone, it was used over 100. And senators don't even have to show up on the floor to explain themselves – just signaling their intent to filibuster effectively stalls legislation.
As a result, the Senate has become a place that one senator described as "non-functional," where even routine bills must now clear 60 votes. This means that 41 senators, representing as little as 11% of the U.S. population could theoretically obstruct passage of a bill supported by 59 senators representing as much as 89% of the population.
This is completely contrary to the intent of our Founders. They believed a supermajority should be required only in select circumstances including the passage of treaties, constitutional amendments and motions of impeachment.
Finally, constant filibustering gums up the Senate calendar. Every filibuster kicks off a complex set of Senate procedures that effectively brings the institution to a stop for as long as a week and prevents other critical issues from being addressed.
The No Labels Solution
Our filibuster fix is based on a simple idea: If senators want to filibuster legislation, they should actually have to explain why in public. We propose a two-part solution to reduce unwarranted use of the filibuster in the Senate:
- Require Real (Not Virtual) Filibusters: If senators want to halt action on a bill, they must take to the floor and hold it through sustained debate.
- End Filibusters on Motions to Proceed: Today, filibusters can be used both to prevent a bill from reaching the floor for debate (motion to proceed) and from ultimately being passed. If the Senate simply ended the practice of filibustering motions to proceed, it could cut the number of filibusters in half and allow more issues to be debated and voted on by the full Senate.
This proposal require a change of House and Senate rules, which can be made effective when the new Congress is seated in 2013.
http://www.nolabels.org/work-3
More here: http://www.nolabels.org/newsroom/senate-filibuster-no-longer-requires-long-floor-speech
To his credit... Rand Paul is doing the rambling - filibuster
[ In Reply To ..]I'm not sure, but he still may be at it!
Supposedly they go on until they can't go on... Well... he's a healthy young man, so maybe he'll be at it when the cock crows.
I'm still anti-Rand, but at least he's doing it the "right" (no pun intended) way.
Oh, they broke "the" record long ago and have been breaking - their own records ever since. nm
[ In Reply To ..]x
More! At least it's getting some results. - nab
[ In Reply To ..]Otherwise they'd get run over by the libs every day. Kudos to Rand Paul for standing up to them.
Do you consider preventing a vote - to be respectable behavior?
[ In Reply To ..].
Just being helpful... - ...
[ In Reply To ..]Let the Majority Rule
Why the filibuster is OK for Democrats but not for Republicans.
By Ben Eidelson|Posted Monday, Feb. 8, 2010, at 4:31 PM
The unraveling of the congressional debate over health care reform is already renewing calls to abolish the Senate filibuster. As many have argued, the filibuster undermines the democratic principle of majority rule and compounds the unrepresentative character of the Senate's design. The health care debacle suggests that the filibuster may also be rendering our country ungovernable. So why not just do away with it?
Because one of the most entrenched assumptions about the filibuster—that it thwarts majority rule—is only half-true. When you crunch the numbers, it turns out that the filibuster has often served to enforce majority rule in recent years, not to undermine it. Instead of abolishing the filibuster, we should try to curb its undemocratic excesses while preserving its role as a democratic check.
More: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2010/02/let_the_majority_rule.html
Don't you worry. They'll get their vote, and most (sm) - LM
[ In Reply To ..]likely Brennan will get the votes needed to be confirmed. But Rand Paul sure is getting his message out there, isn't he? Even old Eric had to admit he lied - not in so many words, of course. LOL -
Did part of this thread disappear? - No Message
[ In Reply To ..]x
I asked the Moderator to remove my portion - of the discussion - sm
[ In Reply To ..]The only ones responding were direct responses to my posts, so any other discussion or replies to other posters about this topic should not have been removed.
I thought this was a private website only for MTs to just sound off and discuss issues important to us. I didn't realize our posts can be read by people all over the country (or world for that matter) just doing general searches in which I found some of my posts come up in Google searches.
Therefore, I withdraw everything that I said and I have no opinion on this subject matter.
Thanks.
Our posts can show up on google searches?! - Yikes!
[ In Reply To ..]How invasive is that?
Yup, I was pretty shocked - of the discussion - sm
[ In Reply To ..]I learned a long time ago that if you can't say something to someones face, then don't say it at all. However, I thought this was different. I come here to sound off on issues, read about issues, give my opinion about issues, but I thought it stayed here. I thought we were anonymous here. I felt a really huge invasion when I was doing a Google search and there were my posts for everyone to see. So call me paranoid if you want, but my thoughts are just that, just my thoughts. I don't belong to any radical group and I voted for Obama, but whether or not I support them or don't support them, agree with them or disagree with them, I don't want my messages plastered all over Google for everyone to see.
Very disappointed. I will be sticking with cooking questions on the Gab board.
you ARE anonymous here... - doe
[ In Reply To ..]unless you use your actual name as a moniker. A search engine is just an index. Do a search for my posts. You can find my posts, but you will not find my name. You will see that I remain anonymous to you and the worldwide web.
I've found posts from MTStars showing up but - usually MTSO or word
[ In Reply To ..]help related.
But unless you post your name or make a slanderous statement where legal charges can be brought (usually in the context of misinformation about an MTSO), anonymity is hopefully still intact.
The Internet was designed to share information (this is usually a statement made in relation to the ease of hacking), so I'm not at all surprised this forum shows up.
Here's the thing - of the discussion - sm
[ In Reply To ..]I don't want any of my posts showing up on a Google search for the world to see my opinion about an issue.
I came here because I thought it was anonymous.
So take for example, and I'm not saying this I'm just using it as an example.
Say anyone is in the WH. Lets just say Bush and Chaney are back in the house. If I say I think Bush and Chaney started an illegal war (again, not saying I did, I'm just using this as an example), or if I disagree with this or that person I really don't want them to read it. It's my own personal opinion.
Do this - type in Napolitano is mad at the media in Google. Guess what the first result is? The post that was posted here. Sure it remains anonymous on the board, but now anyone all over the world can read that, and in the hands of the wrong people they can find out who wrote it. That's not that hard.
To me it doesn't matter whether or not you make a slanderous statement. I guess I just don't like my conversations here to be posted all over the internet for anyone to see. They are just my opinion (or were my opinions - now I have no opinions any more).
So, call me paranoid. I just don't need that headache. I will stick with cooking questions on the gab board.
Oh, I don't think you're paranoid at all. You make a - good point. TY (nm)
[ In Reply To ..]x
FWIW, that post would only come up first for a very few-- - Google now slants/"customizes" search
[ In Reply To ..]results, tailoring them to what it thinks we want based on past searches.
Thus, paranoid wingnuts now always get pages of that stuff for every search, when the same search by someone else will bring entirely different--but also biased--results.
Try a search at home, then the same one on the computer of a friend, a devoted football fanatic or music lover, say, who never reads on-line newspapers or pays attention to politics, and see what you get. Or just try it on somebody else's computer period. It will be different.
exactly. It's a dynamic algorithm; search results vary. - doe (nm)
[ In Reply To ..]
I consider it a design feature, not a flaw. - sm
[ In Reply To ..]I'm surprised to learn that others didn't know the forums here all show up on Google. There's no need to log in to a private board, so like any other website that's open to the public, Google's web crawling bots search it and add it to the Google index. And the updating is getting faster too.
edit: Wow, it took about an hour. Used to take up to a day. (see link)
I was aware and wonder if it's drawn non-MTs here. - There's a total lack of any MT orientation to
[ In Reply To ..]posts on this board. Sure it's politics, but if we were all MTs wouldn't that be reflected in our orientation now and them? To the best of my knowledge I'm the only one who's mentioned MT (in a couple of posts) for some time.
And let's face it, on average this doesn't seem to be quite the typical political mix. :) Even one or two particularly passionate outsiders could make a real difference.
of course! - doe
[ In Reply To ..]Google is a search engine. Search engines are essentially just big indexes of everything that appears on the web. It doesn't mean that google is watching you. If you google "doe," the search will reveal every occurrence of "doe" that is available on line, from the Department of Energy to Bambi. If you want to find posts by me, for example, you have to refine the search to include mtstars.
Similar Messages:
Sticker ShockOct 18, 2012
From US Weekly re. the night of the debate: Ann Romney was sporting a "short-sleeved crimped cotton silk dress by Oscar de la Renta" to the tune of $1,690. "Obama, 48, styled a shift dress and cropped jacket from Michael Kors' 2013 resort collection. The dress retails for $1,795 and the jacket is $1,495," which totaled $3,290. Not that this matters in the whole scheme of things; it just is a point of interest. I can't imagine paying that much for a dress/outfit. ...
CBS On Romney. Ready For A Shock?Oct 29, 2012
Clip is after advertisement http://cnettv.cnet.com/doing-business-mormon-way/9742-1_53-50123283.html ...
Credit Card Reform May Shock SomeFeb 22, 2010
Eileen Aj Connelly, AP Personal Finance Writer, On Sunday February 21, 2010, 2:29 pm EST NEW YORK (AP) -- Your next credit card statement is going to contain an ugly truth: how much that card really costs to use. Now, thanks to a long-awaited law that goes into effect Monday, you'll know that if you pay the minimum on a $3,000 balance with a 14 percent interest rate, it could take you 10 years to pay off. "Jaws will drop," said David Robertson, publisher of The Nilson Report, a newslet ...
ObamaCare Penalty May Come As A Shock At Tax TimeJan 20, 2015
Link: http://news.yahoo.com/video/obamacare-penalty-may-come-shock-151354373.html ...
Shock Poll - Romney Now Leads Among WomenMay 15, 2012
Everywhere I'm reading I see Romney taking the lead over Obama. Now I read this article thought was interesting. Romney is leading with women. It's going to be an interesting race - get ready for a ride. :-) ...
SHOCK: NSA Can Recover ALL Of Hillary’s Deleted EmailsOct 31, 2016
http://conservativetribune.com/30000-missing-hillary-emails-found/?utm_ The 33,000 emails that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton famously deleted — yes, those emails — aren’t lost at all. They’re right under our noses. Or, better put, up in the “cloud” — and the National Security Agency has been sitting on them the entire time, according to a new story from the International Business Times. Kim Dotcom, the internet entrepreneur known for bypassing NASA and Pentagon ...
Kalid Sheik Mohammad: Bush's Shock And Awe Response To 9/11 PreventedDec 02, 2016
Far from trying to draw us in, KSM said that al-Qaeda expected the United States to respond to 9/11 as we had the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut — when, KSM told Mitchell, the United States ‘turned tail and ran.’ ‘Then he looked at me and said, ‘How was I supposed to know that cowboy George Bush would announce he wanted us ‘dead or alive’ and then invade Afghanistan to hunt us down?’’ Mitchell writes. ‘KSM explained that if the United States had treated 9/1 ...