Filibuster Proof Majority Obtained - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: Filibuster Proof Majority Obtained

  1. #11
    First, just because the majority in the Senate are Democrats doesn't mean they will vote strictly along party lines. As the manure gets deeper, a few of them may start to see the light, and the possibility that they won't have a job in 2010.

    Second, NOTHING is inevitable, except death. I, for one, will not give up, and if the SHTF and this country collapses, I will go down swinging (maybe fro mthe end of a rope, but still swinging!). "From my cold, dead hands" is not just a 2nd Amendment cry. When the patriots went up against King George, things looked just as dismal, and they knew that a lot of them would lose their lives in their cry for freedom.

    Are we that pathetic that we'd rather live in a sewer than try to pump out the waste? The statement has never been truer:

    "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)
    -= Piece Corps =-

  2.   
  3. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,669
    Quote Originally Posted by Bohemian View Post
    Its not filibuster proof, because they are counting independents, that typically, but not always vote with the democrats...They still do not have 60 Democrat seats in the Senate...

    Our real problem is the 8 RINO'S that have been selling us out this year...

    IF we keep pressure on the 8 RINO'S and all our representatives in the house and senators in the senate; regardless of party, we can achieve some measure of success, until the 2010 and 2012 elections when we can clean house...

    We can not lay down, because the media is telling us its over...
    The two independents to whom you're referring are Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, a former Democrat, and Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont, a self-proclaimed Socialist. So while they don't technically call themselves Democrats, both of them caucus with the 58 other self-identified Democrats in the Senate to bring the total number of members of the Senate Democratic Caucus to 60. So, as long as all of the caucus's members are present and voting and follow the party line, then yes, the Democrats, for all practical purposes, do have a filibuster-proof majority.
    Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

    Benjamin Franklin

  4. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by tattedupboy View Post
    The two independents to whom you're referring are Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, a former Democrat, and Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont, a self-proclaimed Socialist. So while they don't technically call themselves Democrats, both of them caucus with the 58 other self-identified Democrats in the Senate to bring the total number of members of the Senate Democratic Caucus to 60. So, as long as all of the caucus's members are present and voting and follow the party line, then yes, the Democrats, for all practical purposes, do have a filibuster-proof majority.
    have to agree to disagree with you...

    Seems you forgot that Lieberman endorsed and campaigned for McCain, and has pretty much been disowned by (formally) his own party, because he does not vote party line and because of his endorsement and campaigning for McCain...

    And there is at least a dozen blue dog democrats in the Senate that don't vote party line either...

    "We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately." Ben Franklin - In the Continental Congress just before signing
    the Declaration of Independence, 1776.

    "It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." - Samuel Adams

  5. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,669
    Quote Originally Posted by Bohemian View Post
    have to agree to disagree with you...

    Seems you forgot that Lieberman endorsed and campaigned for McCain, and has pretty much been disowned by (formally) his own party, because he does not vote party line and because of his endorsement and campaigning for McCain...

    And there is at least a dozen blue dog democrats in the Senate that don't vote party line either...

    "We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately." Ben Franklin - In the Continental Congress just before signing
    the Declaration of Independence, 1776.

    "It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." - Samuel Adams
    I actually agree with you. However, look at Lieberman's voting record. The only issue on which he consistently strays from the party line is Iraq. On all other issues of significance (ie., abortion, gun control, affirmative action, higher taxes, etc.,) he is a reliable vote for the Democratic party line.

    Furthermore, I also agree that the magic number of 60 isn't as magical as it seems, particularly when you consider that all one hundred senators aren't always present. Furthermore, with regard to instilling party discipline, Harry Reid is no Tom DeLay. DeLay, love him or hate him, was among the best I know of at getting fence sitters to vote the party line. Harry Reid doesn't have that ability to the extent that DeLay did.
    Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

    Benjamin Franklin

  6. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by matthewaynelson View Post
    I caught a show on the History International channel last night about the life stories of Boone and Crockett. Great educational piece; but, I was particularly encouraged by the bio on Crockett in light of our online conversation. Crockett was an honest man who served his constituents while in Congress with great integrity. To his dislike, he found the politics in Washington to be immoral and full of deceitful practices. Seemingly, they were as distasteful in the early 1800’s as they are in this present day! He fought tirelessly against corrupt politicians and the “immoral agendas” they proposed.





    It seems even in 1821 Congress was quick and free spending our money—but, not as willing with their own! Same is still very true today! Eventually, the Washington elite financed an opponent who would defeat Crockett at the polls, effectively kicking him out of Washington for good.

    I was encouraged by Crockett’s words and the reminder that politics in Washington have always been a mess! Man has generally always made a mess of things with regards to government! BUT, I do believe in all of history, the United States has been the greatest attempt at providing a fair and just rule of a people. BUT, in the end—as long as people are doing the decision making, you’re likely gonna find that human flaws will always result in great potential for MESS!

    With that in mind—I think WE THE PEOPLE have to keep letting our voices be heard and asserting our will over our representatives in Washington. BE INVOLVED IN NATIONAL, STATE AND LOCAL POLITICS. Be common sense and proactive. There are still good men and women who serve in Washington. Let’s be quick to rally around those good candidates—and equally as quick to vote out the scoundrels! Don’t believe as gospel what the media has to say! Do your own thinking. And stay positive!

    Americans have an incredibly rich heritage worth preserving—a way of life many have given their very lives to protect—it is uniquely ours to safeguard!

    Just think what Crockett would think about all the traitors in congress today. It is very sad to see what has become of the Republic our founding fathers fought and died for.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  7. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by tattedupboy View Post
    I actually agree with you. However, look at Lieberman's voting record. The only issue on which he consistently strays from the party line is Iraq. On all other issues of significance (ie., abortion, gun control, affirmative action, higher taxes, etc.,) he is a reliable vote for the Democratic party line.

    Furthermore, I also agree that the magic number of 60 isn't as magical as it seems, particularly when you consider that all one hundred senators aren't always present. Furthermore, with regard to instilling party discipline, Harry Reid is no Tom DeLay. DeLay, love him or hate him, was among the best I know of at getting fence sitters to vote the party line. Harry Reid doesn't have that ability to the extent that DeLay did.
    Joe Lieberman's is better then most of the democrats in the Senate on guns...
    partial...
    * Licensing & registration violate fundamental right to guns. (May 2003)
    * Voted YES on prohibiting foreign & UN aid that restricts US gun ownership. (Sep 2007) (Barack Obama's Global Poverty Act, that contains a Global Gun Ban)
    * Voted YES on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)

  8. #17
    We all know that not all democrats may vote party line, however, the possibility of a no filibuster is there. No one party should have that much power.

  9. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    St. Louis/Missouri
    Posts
    578
    Don't forget about he RINOs in the senate. We are screwed.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast