Best
39 Comments
Post
  • #20
    !
    Harry was in favor of removing the filibuster until someone played him the tape from 2005 when he spoke on the floor in favor of the filibuster. Probably no coincidence that the 2005 speech was removed from his website, either.
  • #36
    !
    so pathetic. The dems are ok if it benefits them but if a republican does it, its unconstitutional and treasonous.
  • #7
    !
    Harry could have been more tough,

    He had the votes to pass,

    He should have played it much more rough,

    and jammed it up their......nose.
  • #10
    !
    how do you figure? Do you even know what changes to the fillibuster rules were up for debate? they would have weakened the minorities power to halt legislation they didn't like.

    another area you should educate yourself about the nation you live in... good citizens would do so....
  • #13
    !
    @woodtick57 - Why would you want to give up or even minimize the ability to block legislation that you are opposed to or feel is bad for the nation?
  • #18
    !
    @Neo_NtheMatrix That's easy....if a progressive liberal has no way to win an argument, either tax, eliminate, defame, degrade, or silence the opposing opinion anyway possible....
  • R Load more replies

  • #5
    !
    They realized they used the filibuster as Mich as the Republicans when they were in the minority. The Democrats were also the ones who added the supper majority . If they change it now what will happen when they become the minority again.
  • #14
    !
    The supper majority? is that where you over-ride a fillibuster but you have to buy Subway catering for the vote?

    JK, i am the king of typos....but they are funny at times..
  • #25
    !
    That's completely untrue. There were 200 filibusters between 2001 and 2006, when democrats were the minority. Between 2007 and today there have been just under 400 filibusters. To put it in perspective, there have only been 1400 fillibusters in our entire history, so in 6 years the Republicans contributed to nearly 30% of all the fillibusters ever.
  • #1
    !
    Everything the govt passes as law spends the next few years in the courts and ultimately the Supreme court decides. An up or down vote would save massive time, allow for more votes, more transparancy and less opportunity to hide pork spending in an open and shut vote because of less "deal making" to get a vote through. Reid caved. He is what he is. Just another bought and paid for politician just like Boehner, McConnell, Pelosi and the rest.
  • #4
    !
    Exactly. Like a Minitary deal, or the Obamacare deals- the people who pay in the end- are the taxpayers. Millions for BS projects. Term Limits & Line Item Vetos are needed. These people are the ruling class-if anyone needs a vow of poverty- it's this collection of bloated overpaid failed lawyers.
  • #35
    !
    Shame on you, Harry Reid! You have violated our trust. What would have been wrong with the "Talking Filibuster"? What is wrong with getting rid of the Secret Hold, that anyone in the Senate can Claim, thereby stopping any bill? And Nobody knows who you are. Secrecy in the Legislative Process is Un-American ! The Republican abuse of the filibuster will continue, and the Senate will come to a standstill, holding the American People Hostage! Over 300 Filibusters since President Obama's First term!
    Harry, we hardly knew you! Be Damned!
  • #32
    !
    Harry wanted job security so he caved. He knows in a couple years the American public will see what a grave mistake Obamacare is and the reelection of Obama was. Problem is there won't be a rock big enough for the well known Obama supporters to hide under. That means you too Hillary!
  • #31
    !
    How about NO pork legislation,that might make them all start earning their pay and in might even be good for the country for a change?
  • #29
    !
    Liberals gonna whine either way...there moms breast fed them too long.....time to take the boob out of the mouth...if can't act like adult give em all passy,s
  • #28
    !
    I'm quite disappointed. Not particularly in the Dems, or the GOP for that matter. Just in Congress in general. The /least/ they could've done is institute the "talking filibuster" rule. Then at least there'd actually be a filibuster occurring during a filibuster, rather than just the threat of one.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • #6
    !
    Cheer up Mr. West, it is unimportant. Remember the DIJA is 50K points, almost 25 times what it was 4 years ago. Unemployment? Down to only .8%(that's with a "." in front). So you see the future is so bright you have to wear shades. No need to ever be sad, EVER!
  • #8
    !
    @Neo_NtheMatrix Why thank you for the kind thoughts. You exaggerate a tiny bit but your point is well taken......
Post