www.ditl.org

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MM2LT2ascqE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKtpPPsR ... annel_page

Says it all. Awesome.

They still need Frankens seat to be decided.

And shouldnt the title read "Democrats become filibuster Proof!" Not "Democrats become Unfilibuster Proof!"

Ah, good. Now they can put away the defilibusterer.

Teaos wrote: And shouldnt the title read "Democrats become filibuster Proof!" Not "Democrats become Unfilibuster Proof!"

Oh right. I think that seat was decided though unless the Republicans are taking it to the supreme court and i didn't learn about that. And good call on that defilibuster machine. No more need to pump volts into old men to kill them and make them shut up.

Monroe wrote:I think that seat was decided though unless the Republicans are taking it to the supreme court and i didn't learn about that.

I've heard that it may go on until June, but Coleman has no chance of winning, only delaying. Franken has a lead of 300+ votes, and every court so far has ruled against Coleman.

That's what everyone said in 2000 and frankly, given this latest development, I hope the same thing happens this time as then. Without the safeguard of an independent upper house, and no monarchy to put the brakes on in extreme cases, a fillibuster-proof majority would make the Democrats too powerful.

Captain Seafort wrote:That's what everyone said in 2000 and frankly, given this latest development, I hope the same thing happens this time as then.

In the 2000 Florida election, Bush had the most votes initially and at every stage of the recount (until it was canceled), and ... he won. In this case, the recount was completed, Franken has a significant lead, and Coleman is grasping at desperate arguments (i.e. they've been dismissed with prejudice by the state courts) that wouldn't regain him the lead even if they were upheld. Not only did Franken win the most votes in the election, but fully 64% of Minnesotans now want Coleman to drop out.

Without the safeguard of an independent upper house, and no monarchy to put the brakes on in extreme cases, a fillibuster-proof majority would make the Democrats too powerful.

After living under 8 years of mostly Republican rule, I don't want them controlling a single part of my government. They're wrong on every single issue that I care about, and they have justifiably been punished by the American electorate. A filibuster proof majority might mean the difference between getting universal health care, getting decent labor and environmental regulations, and being stuck with the status quo.

I have never really cared about politicians who jump political parties while still serving their current term. Just goes to show you that they are only looking out for themselves.

Lazar wrote:

Captain Seafort wrote:Without the safeguard of an independent upper house, and no monarchy to put the brakes on in extreme cases, a fillibuster-proof majority would make the Democrats too powerful.

After living under 8 years of mostly Republican rule, I don't want them controlling a single part of my government. They're wrong on every single issue that I care about, and they have justifiably been punished by the American electorate. A filibuster proof majority might mean the difference between getting universal health care, getting decent labor and environmental regulations, and being stuck with the status quo.

Three reasons I'm praying they don't get it.

Besides, neither side is a perfect voting block. Even having sixty seats with a D on them doesn't mean they'll all agree.

Three reasons I'm praying they don't get it.

Who? The Democrats? If so, what's wrong with having that stuff implemented?

Besides, neither side is a perfect voting block. Even having sixty seats with a D on them doesn't mean they'll all agree.

Aye. I posted in another thread about how each party isn't one unified ideology, it's made up of dozens of different factions all looking for seperate things.

In any case, I welcome this new development. It can't be any worse than having the Republicans in total control, as we've seen for the last 8 years.

Rochey wrote:

Three reasons I'm praying they don't get it.

Who? The Democrats? If so, what's wrong with having that stuff implemented?

Because frankly I don't think it'll help anything at all. I could get into a long explanation of it but I doubt anyone would really want to hear it.

I'd be interested. In particular, I'm interested in why you think things like universal health care and enviromental protection would be bad ideas.

I don't find environmental protection to be a bad idea. I do find knee-jerk legislation in response to mass hysteria over a poorly at best understood phenomenon to be a bad idea however. Especially when that legislation is going to cost hundreds of billions, even trillions of dollars to implement with no real guarantee of doing anything constructive. I'm not ready to watch my country slit its own throat over the altar of environmentalism for no real benefit.

Labor protection, just what about labor in the US needs protecting? If anything over protection of labor is counter productive, case in point the US auto industry. Labor has the auto industry in the US by the short and curlies. The auto industry in the US is also tanking, there might be a correlation.

I currently have health care, good health care. I have no desire to see the government stick its nose into it. The government doesn't have a great track record of improving things when it gets involved. I don't want the same people who brought you the DMV and IRS running the health care profession in the US. To add to it the tax burden will be huge. I already pay a good portion of my pay check for my health insurance, I don't want to have to pay even more for someone else's.

I don't find environmental protection to be a bad idea. I do find knee-jerk legislation in response to mass hysteria over a poorly at best understood phenomenon to be a bad idea however. Especially when that legislation is going to cost hundreds of billions, even trillions of dollars to implement with no real guarantee of doing anything constructive. I'm not ready to watch my country slit its own throat over the altar of environmentalism for no real benefit.

You're talking about global warming, I take it?

Labor protection, just what about labor in the US needs protecting? If anything over protection of labor is counter productive, case in point the US auto industry. Labor has the auto industry in the US by the short and curlies. The auto industry in the US is also tanking, there might be a correlation.

Obviously, I'm in no position to really discuss the current status of US labour.

I currently have health care, good health care. I have no desire to see the government stick its nose into it.

And what about the millions who don't have good health care? What are they to do?

The government doesn't have a great track record of improving things when it gets involved. I don't want the same people who brought you the DMV and IRS running the health care profession in the US.

And is it any better to let companies, whose only motiviation is to make as much money for themselves as possible while providing the minimum in care, to run things?

When you're talking about non-vital things, it's perfectly fine to let companies run it. But when talking about something so serious as the lives of everyone in the country, I seriously doubt that a bunch of money-hungry CEOs are going to be the best choice to head it.

Yes, the government can screw things up royaly when they get their hands on it. I've experienced enough of that myself to know it to be true. But if it comes down to a choice between politicians - who have it in their best interests to keep the people happy - and a bunch of corporate suits - whose only interest is in themselves - then I'll take the politicians any day.

To add to it the tax burden will be huge. I already pay a good portion of my pay check for my health insurance, I don't want to have to pay even more for someone else's.

IIRC, the US actualy pays more per capita on health care than nations with universal health care.

Yes, taxes will probably go up. But what most Americans don't seem to realise is that, compared to Europe, they pay almost nothing in taxes. Over here, we pay shitloads of our paycheck back in taxes. Despite that, I'd rather be content in the knowledge that I have a good social net to back me up if the worst should happen than have a bit more money to spend on myself.

The filibuster is de facto often a last resort of useless time mismanagement and the avail of a lost cause. However, this could set a dangerous precedent - namely, that of overriding the governing values of our legislation in order to serve the convenience of the majority party. No matter which party that is at any one time, that idea makes me uncomfortable.