Populism

[Beet]

No, that would be after the midterm elections in which the GOP can get enough seats and momentum to pass this thing.

Um, if you expect 4 consecutive election wins, somethign that has never happened in U.S. history outside of a Great-Depression like event, then you are exhibiting a despicable amount of hubris and America will soon be a fascist state if what you say comes true.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Arrogant prick? You are the one who started this name calling d*mbass, I am simply responding in kind. I see absolutely ZERO evidence in anything I've ever said to justify your comments, however. Too bad you have to resort to personal attacks instead of refuting the arguments, which you have yet to do. Reid can't do anything because he's only the leader of 44 senators, so I don't see what he has to do with this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Um, the difference is that in a war, the president can do those things, but that's recognized as an expctional circumstance. Who are you to delcare the war is over in 10 years? It wont be over in 10 years just as it didn't start on 9/11/01... terrorism has been around since the 1970s and it will still be around in 10 years or 20 years or 30 years, because it is an action and not a government. This loss of civil liberties is permanent.

[Jake]

Not permenant enough.

[Beet]

Not permenant enough.

How can something be not permanent enough?

[Jake]

Some provisions of the PATRIOT Act must be renewed and any further restrictions on civil liberties will probably have expiration dates on them.

[A18]

I said 2007 or 2009, as in the GOP will win one or the other.

It's hilarious, though, to get your definition of fascism. I'll keep that in mind the next time you say Bush is becoming a dictator, and go ahead and skip over it.

This is EXACTLY the kind of thing I'm talking about. You don't even know what a filibuster is. You need 60 votes for cloture. The GOP has 55 senators, a few of which are RINOs. Reid has 44 senators, which means there are only 56 votes left in the Senate. No cloture, no up or down vote, no Social Security reform.

The reason the GOP can get other things done is because the Democrats haven't filibustered everything. If the parties did that, nothing would have passed since, what, the 60s?

[Beet]

I said 2007 or 2009, as in the GOP will win one or the other.

You said "midterm"

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I said the U.S. would soon become fascist. I didn't give any definition. Perhaps I was exaggerating a little, but it would definitely be very exceptional and historically unprecedented to have another GOP win in '06 without a major upheaval.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

THis is the same thing you said before. You know I know what cloture is, but the fact is, the debate over cloture has nothing to do with social security. The Republicans didn't make the Democrats promise they wouldn't filibuster social security reform this week as part of their "compromise". It was all about judges. You know it and I know it. The GOP can get legislation passed if it wants, and the fact is they've had the better part of 4 1/2 years to do it (heck, Bush campaigned in 2000 for social security reform) and haven't even made a proposal yet. They WON'T do it. Because they are now dominated by big-government types, that's why.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would like to see the GOP try and pass a social security reform bill and force the Democrats to filibuster it.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Predicting more GOP pickups is not only rather unlikely historically-wise, it's also pretty foolish considering Americans are not happy with how they're running Congress.

Americans don't like the SS Reform plan. They didn't like what they did with Terri Schivavo. They want to keep the filibuster. So why give them more seats? Plus Bush's approval ratings certainly aren't great now. What does the GOP have going for them?

SS is one of my most cold button issues, but the Democrats have never threatened to filibuster it. It's not going anywhere because the polls are against it.

[A18]

Just weeks ago a poll showed GOP congressmen have higher approval ratings than the Democrats.

Polls have shown support, opposition, and neutrality towards a rule change regarding the filibuster.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wrong, pay attention to the news, or don't talk about. The Democrats wrote it off right away, and rallied against it. Reid says he has 45 votes (Jeffords is in on it) against any change to Social Security that includes person accounts.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Simply flat out polls like that are meaningless. Plenty of polls in 2004 showed more people planned on voting for a Democrat for Congress. Gerrymandering and the uneven distribution of Senate seats mean raw numbers like that mean nothing.

So me polls where a majority want to abolish filibustering, I have not seen one.

[A18]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Judicial%20Nominations--May%2014.htm

57% of Americans say that "Senate rules should be changed so that a vote must be taken on every person the President nominates to become a judge."

[Alcon]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Judicial%20Nominations--May%2014.htm

57% of Americans say that "Senate rules should be changed so that a vote must be taken on every person the President nominates to become a judge."

Again, people are stupid: I'm sure plenty of people misinterpreted it to mean Bush not being able to just, say, appoint them.

[A18]

Well, he also asked, "If Rules are Changed, Should Democrats Shut Down Senate?"

So it would be kind of weird for someone to think that...

[Alcon]

Well, he also asked, "If Rules are Changed, Should Democrats Shut Down Senate?"

So it would be kind of weird for someone to think that...

I suppose that's true, but after seeing polling on Social Security reform...you never know.