pokerfied.com
Promoting poker discussions.

Main
Date: 10 Feb 2009 23:50:35
From: RGP Loner
Subject: I am an idiot on this stimulus Vote.
I used to think I was pretty astute when it came to the workings of our
Congress.

Can somebody explain to me why the senate needed 61 votes to pass this
boondoggle.

It seems to me that dick Cheney voted , or was it algore voted to break a
tie in the senate and pass through a major bill with a 51 50 vote.


Is Congress just messing with the population by pretending that 61 out of
100 senators are on board?

This seams to give political cover to both parties,in the event that the
country heads down hill.


Any one ?

_______________________________________________________________________ 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com






 
Date: 11 Feb 2009 08:08:15
From: Schmedley
Subject: Re: I am an idiot on this stimulus Vote.
On Feb 11 2009 2:50 AM, RGP Loner wrote:

> I used to think I was pretty astute when it came to the workings of our
> Congress.
>
> Can somebody explain to me why the senate needed 61 votes to pass this
> boondoggle.
>
> It seems to me that dick Cheney voted , or was it algore voted to break a
> tie in the senate and pass through a major bill with a 51 50 vote.
>
>
> Is Congress just messing with the population by pretending that 61 out of
> 100 senators are on board?
>
> This seams to give political cover to both parties,in the event that the
> country heads down hill.
>
>
> Any one ?


The Senate needs 3/5 majority to end debate and proceed to a vote. In
past years, the majority would require the minority to actually filibuster
on the fllor. These days the filibuster is just assumed, and if the
majority doesn't have the votes everybody just moves on to the next thing.
The 3/5 number was reduced from 2/3 sometime after the 1960s filibusters.

In addition, on this stimulus, I think they actually needed 3/5 to pass
it, as the bill required some sort of suspension of the Rules to get to
the floor in the first place.

--- 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




 
Date: 11 Feb 2009 08:02:38
From: johnny_t
Subject: Re: I am an idiot on this stimulus Vote.
RGP Loner wrote:
> I used to think I was pretty astute when it came to the workings of our
> Congress.
>
> Can somebody explain to me why the senate needed 61 votes to pass this
> boondoggle.
>
> It seems to me that dick Cheney voted , or was it algore voted to break a
> tie in the senate and pass through a major bill with a 51 50 vote.
>
>
> Is Congress just messing with the population by pretending that 61 out of
> 100 senators are on board?
>
> This seams to give political cover to both parties,in the event that the
> country heads down hill.
>
>
> Any one ?
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
>
>

New rules of the senate. There does not have to be a REAL filibuster
just the threat of one. If you cannot get cloture, (40 votes), then the
bill cannot be brought up to vote.

Pretty much EVERYTHING requires a super-majority of the senate under
these rules.

I am not sure that this is any less or more broken than anything else in
the US government. It is what it is.


  
Date: 11 Feb 2009 20:27:55
From: Travel
Subject: Re: I am an idiot on this stimulus Vote.
> Basically, you need 60 votes (not 61) because the stimulus bill
raises the
> deficit over a five year window, which makes it subject to a point of
order
> pursuant to (inter alia) s. 201 of S. Con. Res. 21 .
>
> It has nothing to do with filibustering as some have suggested.- Hide
quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

That is correct.

.......................................................................
.

That has to do with the "why" the 60 votes were needed, but if the
Republicans had successfully blocked the bill it would have been
filibustering. As it turned out, Republicans: Spector, Collins and
Snowe defected. I have a feeling that the Republicans (the leadership)
actually wanted these defections to avoid, as The Moron Beaten By Jacks
points out, a big, lengthy "obstructionists story".

The thing is, the Republicans want a stimulus bill, and understand that
there's a certain immediacy involved; and they gave it their best shot
to lower pork and increase tax cuts. That's all they (Republicans) can
really do, anyway. I.e., they weren't seeking to kill the bill,
out-right, in the first place. Steve Forbes, Mitt Romney, all financial
experts say that a stimulus bill is definitely needed. However, the
Republicans being out of the majority in congress, and out of the White
House, will never get their own stimulus bill; and the current bill is
"it", like it or not.

_________________________________________________________
Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://www.pokermagazine.com
Visit www.pokermagazine.com


   
Date: 16 Feb 2009 01:37:04
From: RGP Loner
Subject: Re: I am an idiot on this stimulus Vote.
On Feb 11 2009 7:27 PM, Travel wrote:

> > Basically, you need 60 votes (not 61) because the stimulus bill
> raises the
> > deficit over a five year window, which makes it subject to a point of
> order
> > pursuant to (inter alia) s. 201 of S. Con. Res. 21 .
> >
> > It has nothing to do with filibustering as some have suggested.- Hide
> quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> That is correct.
>
> ........................................................................
> .
>
> That has to do with the "why" the 60 votes were needed, but if the
> Republicans had successfully blocked the bill it would have been
> filibustering. As it turned out, Republicans: Spector, Collins and
> Snowe defected. I have a feeling that the Republicans (the leadership)
> actually wanted these defections to avoid, as The Moron Beaten By Jacks
> points out, a big, lengthy "obstructionists story".
>
> The thing is, the Republicans want a stimulus bill, and understand that
> there's a certain immediacy involved; and they gave it their best shot
> to lower pork and increase tax cuts. That's all they (Republicans) can
> really do, anyway. I.e., they weren't seeking to kill the bill,
> out-right, in the first place. Steve Forbes, Mitt Romney, all financial
> experts say that a stimulus bill is definitely needed. However, the
> Republicans being out of the majority in congress, and out of the White
> House, will never get their own stimulus bill; and the current bill is
> "it", like it or not.
>


Well, No Shit, Glad that you found an understanding.

________________________________________________________________________ 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com




 
Date: 11 Feb 2009 03:37:47
From: BillB
Subject: Re: I am an idiot on this stimulus Vote.


"RGP Loner" <aaaa0db@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:bjca66x7jk.ln2@recgroups.com...
> I used to think I was pretty astute when it came to the workings of our
> Congress.
>
> Can somebody explain to me why the senate needed 61 votes to pass this
> boondoggle.
>
> It seems to me that dick Cheney voted , or was it algore voted to break a
> tie in the senate and pass through a major bill with a 51 50 vote.
>
>
> Is Congress just messing with the population by pretending that 61 out of
> 100 senators are on board?
>
> This seams to give political cover to both parties,in the event that the
> country heads down hill.
>
>
> Any one ?

Basically, you need 60 votes (not 61) because the stimulus bill raises the
deficit over a five year window, which makes it subject to a point of order
pursuant to (inter alia) s. 201 of S. Con. Res. 21 [110th].

It has nothing to do with filibustering as some have suggested.



  
Date: 11 Feb 2009 08:13:54
From: Schmedley
Subject: Re: I am an idiot on this stimulus Vote.
On Feb 11 2009 6:37 AM, BillB wrote:

> "RGP Loner" <aaaa0db@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> news:bjca66x7jk.ln2@recgroups.com...
> > I used to think I was pretty astute when it came to the workings of our
> > Congress.
> >
> > Can somebody explain to me why the senate needed 61 votes to pass this
> > boondoggle.
> >
> > It seems to me that dick Cheney voted , or was it algore voted to break a
> > tie in the senate and pass through a major bill with a 51 50 vote.
> >
> >
> > Is Congress just messing with the population by pretending that 61 out of
> > 100 senators are on board?
> >
> > This seams to give political cover to both parties,in the event that the
> > country heads down hill.
> >
> >
> > Any one ?
>
> Basically, you need 60 votes (not 61) because the stimulus bill raises the
> deficit over a five year window, which makes it subject to a point of order
> pursuant to (inter alia) s. 201 of S. Con. Res. 21 [110th].
>
> It has nothing to do with filibustering as some have suggested.

Yes, this is it I think. However, there was a vote Monday evening that I
believe was the end of debate, essentially foreclosing a filibuster. The
other two votes on Tuesday were substantive and both needed a
supermajority, according to Cspan.

--- 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



  
Date: 11 Feb 2009 07:20:08
From: Alim Nassor
Subject: Re: I am an idiot on this stimulus Vote.
On Feb 11, 5:37=A0am, "BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca > wrote:
> "RGP Loner" <aaaa...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>
> news:bjca66x7jk.ln2@recgroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > I used to think I was pretty astute when it came to the workings of our
> > Congress.
>
> > Can somebody explain to me why the senate needed 61 votes to pass this
> > boondoggle.
>
> > It seems to me that dick Cheney voted , or was it algore voted to break=
a
> > tie in the senate and pass through a major bill with a 51 50 vote.
>
> > Is Congress just messing with the population by pretending that 61 out =
of
> > 100 senators are on board?
>
> > This seams to give political cover to both parties,in the event that th=
e
> > country heads down hill.
>
> > Any one ?
>
> Basically, you need 60 votes (not 61) because the stimulus bill raises th=
e
> deficit over a five year window, which makes it subject to a point of ord=
er
> pursuant to (inter alia) =A0s. 201 of S. Con. Res. 21 [110th].
>
> It has nothing to do with filibustering as some have suggested.- Hide quo=
ted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

That is correct.


  
Date: 11 Feb 2009 03:55:44
From: RGP Loner
Subject: Re: I am an idiot on this stimulus Vote.
On Feb 11 2009 4:37 AM, BillB wrote:

> "RGP Loner" <aaaa0db@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> news:bjca66x7jk.ln2@recgroups.com...
> > I used to think I was pretty astute when it came to the workings of our
> > Congress.
> >
> > Can somebody explain to me why the senate needed 61 votes to pass this
> > boondoggle.
> >
> > It seems to me that dick Cheney voted , or was it algore voted to break a
> > tie in the senate and pass through a major bill with a 51 50 vote.
> >
> >
> > Is Congress just messing with the population by pretending that 61 out of
> > 100 senators are on board?
> >
> > This seams to give political cover to both parties,in the event that the
> > country heads down hill.
> >
> >
> > Any one ?
>
> Basically, you need 60 votes (not 61) because the stimulus bill raises the
> deficit over a five year window, which makes it subject to a point of order
> pursuant to (inter alia) s. 201 of S. Con. Res. 21 [110th].
>
> It has nothing to do with filibustering as some have suggested.

Well, Bill T , if that is your real name, if you are correct, then
you may be correct about my mental acuity ala other post.


Sorry. my bad.

------- 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



   
Date: 11 Feb 2009 04:06:19
From: Bill T
Subject: Re: I am an idiot on this stimulus Vote.
On 2/11/2009 03:55, RGP Loner wrote:

> Well, Bill T , if that is your real name, if you are correct, then
> you may be correct about my mental acuity ala other post.
>


1) Bill T is not the same as BillB

2) You mean to say "vis-a-vis", not "a la".




    
Date: 11 Feb 2009 04:21:32
From: RGP Loner
Subject: Re: I am an idiot on this stimulus Vote.
On Feb 11 2009 5:06 AM, Bill T wrote:

> On 2/11/2009 03:55, RGP Loner wrote:
>
> > Well, Bill T , if that is your real name, if you are correct, then
> > you may be correct about my mental acuity ala other post.
> >
>
>
> 1) Bill T is not the same as BillB
>
> 2) You mean to say "vis-a-vis", not "a la".



No, a said ala and I meant it . And as for you being a dik vis a vis my
other post, that now stands.

------ 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




 
Date: 11 Feb 2009 04:06:32
From: Travel
Subject: Re: I am an idiot on this stimulus Vote.
best online poker site.

"RGP Loner" Usenet Poster
aaaa0db@webnntp.invalid Post #1 of 7 (2 views) Copy Shortcut Feb 11,
2009, 2:50 AM
I am an idiot on this stimulus Vote. Reply

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
---------

I used to think I was pretty astute when it came to the workings of our

Congress.
.......................................................................
................

That seems to be one of your problems.
You're not "astute" on any of this.

Just about everyone who posts here knows what's going on and how it all
works. It's just that the left wing groupies lie about it and try to
spin the truth.

You, on the other hand, don't really know what you're talking about.

If you even have to ask the question of your original post, you
shouldn't be pontificating on politics in the first place.

Have you ever heard of a conference committee? Do you know what it is,
or is that the question of your next special, dumb thread starter?

(Is that you! Ruy???)

_________________________________________________________
Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://www.pokermagazine.com
Visit www.pokermagazine.com


  
Date: 11 Feb 2009 02:35:57
From: RGP Loner
Subject: Re: I am an idiot on this stimulus Vote.
On Feb 11 2009 3:06 AM, Travel wrote:

> best online poker site.
>
> "RGP Loner" Usenet Poster
> aaaa0db@webnntp.invalid Post #1 of 7 (2 views) Copy Shortcut Feb 11,
> 2009, 2:50 AM
> I am an idiot on this stimulus Vote. Reply
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
>
> I used to think I was pretty astute when it came to the workings of our
>
> Congress.
> ........................................................................
> .................
>
> That seems to be one of your problems.
> You're not "astute" on any of this.
>
> Just about everyone who posts here knows what's going on and how it all
> works. It's just that the left wing groupies lie about it and try to
> spin the truth.
>
> You, on the other hand, don't really know what you're talking about.
>
> If you even have to ask the question of your original post, you
> shouldn't be pontificating on politics in the first place.
>
> Have you ever heard of a conference committee? Do you know what it is,
> or is that the question of your next special, dumb thread starter?
>



That is my point,
Since when was a super majority necessary to get a bill into a the
conference committee ?


Uh HUH?

_______________________________________________________________________ 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



   
Date: 11 Feb 2009 02:43:34
From: Bill T
Subject: Re: I am an idiot on this stimulus Vote.
On 2/11/2009 02:35, RGP Loner wrote:

>
> That is my point,
> Since when was a super majority necessary to get a bill into a the
> conference committee ?
>
>
> Uh HUH?


Not to be unkind or anything, but taking into account all of your posts
you must be the dumbest guy to ever appear here.




    
Date: 11 Feb 2009 03:29:27
From: RGP Loner
Subject: Re: I am an idiot on this stimulus Vote.
On Feb 11 2009 3:43 AM, Bill T wrote:

> On 2/11/2009 02:35, RGP Loner wrote:
>
> >
> > That is my point,
> > Since when was a super majority necessary to get a bill into a the
> > conference committee ?
> >
> >
> > Uh HUH?
>
>
> Not to be unkind or anything, but taking into account all of your posts
> you must be the dumbest guy to ever appear here.


I have been called worse by better, just ask travel LOL

not to be unkind or anything Bill.

------ 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



    
Date: 11 Feb 2009 03:25:39
From: RGP Loner
Subject: Re: I am an idiot on this stimulus Vote.
On Feb 11 2009 3:43 AM, Bill T wrote:

> On 2/11/2009 02:35, RGP Loner wrote:
>
> >
> > That is my point,
> > Since when was a super majority necessary to get a bill into a the
> > conference committee ?
> >
> >
> > Uh HUH?
>
>
> Not to be unkind or anything, but taking into account all of your posts
> you must be the dumbest guy to ever appear here.
Oh I get it, you showed up this morning, is that right?

_____________________________________________________________________ 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com




    
Date: 11 Feb 2009 03:23:46
From: RGP Loner
Subject: Re: I am an idiot on this stimulus Vote.
On Feb 11 2009 3:43 AM, Bill T wrote:

> On 2/11/2009 02:35, RGP Loner wrote:
>
> >
> > That is my point,
> > Since when was a super majority necessary to get a bill into a the
> > conference committee ?
> >
> >
> > Uh HUH?
>
>
> Not to be unkind or anything, but taking into account all of your posts
> you must be the dumbest guy to ever appear here.


Really, Care to say why or are you just a lurker?

---- 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




 
Date: 11 Feb 2009 02:59:49
From: browser
Subject: Re: I am an idiot on this stimulus Vote.
"RGP Loner" <aaaa0db@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:bjca66x7jk.ln2@recgroups.com...
>I used to think I was pretty astute when it came to the workings of our
> Congress.
>
> Can somebody explain to me why the senate needed 61 votes to pass this
> boondoggle.
>
> It seems to me that dick Cheney voted , or was it algore voted to break a
> tie in the senate and pass through a major bill with a 51 50 vote.
>
>
> Is Congress just messing with the population by pretending that 61 out of
> 100 senators are on board?
>
> This seams to give political cover to both parties,in the event that the
> country heads down hill.
>
>
> Any one ?
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
>
>
>

to break a filibuster, they need 60; once the final bill comes to a vote,
it's just 51



  
Date: 11 Feb 2009 02:29:13
From: Dutch
Subject: Re: I am an idiot on this stimulus Vote.

"browser" <browser2920@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:4992857c$0$17072$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> "RGP Loner" <aaaa0db@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> news:bjca66x7jk.ln2@recgroups.com...
>>I used to think I was pretty astute when it came to the workings of our
>> Congress.
>>
>> Can somebody explain to me why the senate needed 61 votes to pass this
>> boondoggle.
>>
>> It seems to me that dick Cheney voted , or was it algore voted to break a
>> tie in the senate and pass through a major bill with a 51 50 vote.
>>
>>
>> Is Congress just messing with the population by pretending that 61 out of
>> 100 senators are on board?
>>
>> This seams to give political cover to both parties,in the event that the
>> country heads down hill.
>>
>>
>> Any one ?
>>
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>> RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
>>
>>
>>
>
> to break a filibuster, they need 60; once the final bill comes to a vote,
> it's just 51

So the Reps were filibustering? Turkeys.



  
Date: 11 Feb 2009 01:17:30
From: RGP Loner
Subject: Re: I am an idiot on this stimulus Vote.
On Feb 11 2009 12:59 AM, browser wrote:

> "RGP Loner" <aaaa0db@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> news:bjca66x7jk.ln2@recgroups.com...
> >I used to think I was pretty astute when it came to the workings of our
> > Congress.
> >
> > Can somebody explain to me why the senate needed 61 votes to pass this
> > boondoggle.
> >
> > It seems to me that dick Cheney voted , or was it algore voted to break a
> > tie in the senate and pass through a major bill with a 51 50 vote.
> >
> >
> > Is Congress just messing with the population by pretending that 61 out of
> > 100 senators are on board?
> >
> > This seams to give political cover to both parties,in the event that the
> > country heads down hill.
> >
> >
> > Any one ?
> >
> to break a filibuster, they need 60; once the final bill comes to a vote,
> it's just 51
Yes, that is the part that I am confused on. if they needed gore or
cheney to break a tie, how did that previous bill get so far?

---- 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




   
Date: 11 Feb 2009 09:18:56
From: Beldin the Sorcerer
Subject: Re: I am an idiot on this stimulus Vote.

"RGP Loner" <aaaa0db@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:amha66x35l.ln2@recgroups.com...
> On Feb 11 2009 12:59 AM, browser wrote:
>
>> "RGP Loner" <aaaa0db@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:bjca66x7jk.ln2@recgroups.com...
>> >I used to think I was pretty astute when it came to the workings of our
>> > Congress.
>> >
>> > Can somebody explain to me why the senate needed 61 votes to pass this
>> > boondoggle.
>> >
>> > It seems to me that dick Cheney voted , or was it algore voted to break
>> > a
>> > tie in the senate and pass through a major bill with a 51 50 vote.
>> >
>> >
>> > Is Congress just messing with the population by pretending that 61 out
>> > of
>> > 100 senators are on board?
>> >
>> > This seams to give political cover to both parties,in the event that
>> > the
>> > country heads down hill.
>> >
>> >
>> > Any one ?
>> >
>> to break a filibuster, they need 60; once the final bill comes to a vote,
>> it's just 51
> Yes, that is the part that I am confused on. if they needed gore or
> cheney to break a tie, how did that previous bill get so far?
>
Senators don't filibuster EVERY piece of legislation.
It's a pain in the ass to talk at the podium all day.




    
Date: 11 Feb 2009 02:04:14
From: RGP Loner
Subject: Re: I am an idiot on this stimulus Vote.
On Feb 11 2009 2:18 AM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:

> "RGP Loner" <aaaa0db@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> news:amha66x35l.ln2@recgroups.com...
> > On Feb 11 2009 12:59 AM, browser wrote:
> >
> >> "RGP Loner" <aaaa0db@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> >> news:bjca66x7jk.ln2@recgroups.com...
> >> >I used to think I was pretty astute when it came to the workings of our
> >> > Congress.
> >> >
> >> > Can somebody explain to me why the senate needed 61 votes to pass this
> >> > boondoggle.
> >> >
> >> > It seems to me that dick Cheney voted , or was it algore voted to break
> >> > a
> >> > tie in the senate and pass through a major bill with a 51 50 vote.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Is Congress just messing with the population by pretending that 61 out
> >> > of
> >> > 100 senators are on board?
> >> >
> >> > This seams to give political cover to both parties,in the event that
> >> > the
> >> > country heads down hill.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Any one ?
> >> >
> >> to break a filibuster, they need 60; once the final bill comes to a vote,
> >> it's just 51
> > Yes, that is the part that I am confused on. if they needed gore or
> > cheney to break a tie, how did that previous bill get so far?
> >
> Senators don't filibuster EVERY piece of legislation.
> It's a pain in the ass to talk at the podium all day.


For who, is one party willing to make the sacrifice , but another party
unable to?

I would have been glued to cspan if the repubs had instituted a filibuster
over this bill.

------ 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



     
Date: 11 Feb 2009 02:42:19
From: Dutch
Subject: Re: I am an idiot on this stimulus Vote.
"RGP Loner" <aaaa0db@webnntp.invalid > wrote

> I would have been glued to cspan if the repubs had instituted a filibuster
> over this bill.

wow, yea that would be some compelling viewing..



      
Date: 11 Feb 2009 19:55:50
From: Travel
Subject: Re: I am an idiot on this stimulus Vote.
RGP Loser wrote:
That is my point,
Since when was a super majority necessary to get a bill into a the
conference committee ?


Uh HUH?

_______________________________________________________________________

That clearly wasn't your point, Blowpez. And if it had been your point,
it would've served to further demonstrate that you're totally clueless.

_________________________________________________________
Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://www.pokermagazine.com
Visit www.pokermagazine.com


       
Date: 16 Feb 2009 01:34:49
From: RGP Loner
Subject: Re: I am an idiot on this stimulus Vote.
On Feb 11 2009 6:55 PM, Travel wrote:

> RGP Loser wrote:
> That is my point,
> Since when was a super majority necessary to get a bill into a the
> conference committee ?
>
>
> Uh HUH?
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> That clearly wasn't your point, Blowpez. And if it had been your point,
> it would've served to further demonstrate that you're totally clueless.
>
If you knew what my point was you wouldn't be the DIK you are .

________________________________________________________________________ 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




    
Date: 11 Feb 2009 04:23:30
From: browser
Subject: Re: I am an idiot on this stimulus Vote.
"Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldinyyz@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:4Kwkl.130$ac6.66@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>
>>>
> Senators don't filibuster EVERY piece of legislation.
> It's a pain in the ass to talk at the podium all day.
>
>

You're right. Just the ones the other party wants to pass. :)



     
Date: 11 Feb 2009 10:06:41
From: Beldin the Sorcerer
Subject: Re: I am an idiot on this stimulus Vote.

"browser" <browser2920@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:4992991a$0$4881$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldinyyz@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:4Kwkl.130$ac6.66@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>>
>>>>
>> Senators don't filibuster EVERY piece of legislation.
>> It's a pain in the ass to talk at the podium all day.
>>
>>
>
> You're right. Just the ones the other party wants to pass. :)
That's not true.
There's loads of low impact partisan shit that gets passed.


>




  
Date: 11 Feb 2009 00:24:48
From: Peter Secor
Subject: Re: I am an idiot on this stimulus Vote.
"browser" <browser2920@yahoo.com > wrote:

>"RGP Loner" <aaaa0db@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>news:bjca66x7jk.ln2@recgroups.com...
>>I used to think I was pretty astute when it came to the workings of our
>> Congress.
>>
>> Can somebody explain to me why the senate needed 61 votes to pass this
>> boondoggle.
>>
>> It seems to me that dick Cheney voted , or was it al gore voted to break a
>> tie in the senate and pass through a major bill with a 51 50 vote.
>>
>>
>> Is Congress just messing with the population by pretending that 61 out of
>> 100 senators are on board?
>>
>> This seams to give political cover to both parties,in the event that the
>> country heads down hill.
>>
>>
>> Any one ?
>>
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>> RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
>>
>>
>>
>
>to break a filibuster, they need 60; once the final bill comes to a vote,
>it's just 51

They'll still need 60 for the final vote to overcome procedural
"points of order" available to any Senator.

Best,

Peter
--
http://zbigniew.pyrzqxgl.com/bargegeek.html
A+++ G++ PKR+ PEG- B+ TB ADB++ M
www.barge.org
"There are no strangers at BARGE, just friends we haven't met yet"


 
Date: 10 Feb 2009 23:59:00
From: Clave
Subject: Re: I am an idiot on this stimulus Vote.
"RGP Loner" <aaaa0db@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:bjca66x7jk.ln2@recgroups.com...
>I used to think I was pretty astute when it came to the workings of our
> Congress.
>
> Can somebody explain to me why the senate needed 61 votes to pass this
> boondoggle.

They needed 61 for cloture, not passage.

HTH.
Jim




  
Date: 11 Feb 2009 09:27:27
From: A Man Beaten by Jacks
Subject: Re: I am an idiot on this stimulus Vote.
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 23:59:00 -0800, "Clave"
<ClaviusNoSpamDammit@cablespeed.com > wrote:

>"RGP Loner" <aaaa0db@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>news:bjca66x7jk.ln2@recgroups.com...
>>I used to think I was pretty astute when it came to the workings of our
>> Congress.

>> Can somebody explain to me why the senate needed 61 votes to pass this
>> boondoggle.

>They needed 61 for cloture, not passage.

Well, technically, they don't need more than a majority to do
anything. But you don't invoke the "Constitutional" or "nuclear"
option without political fallout. Apparently, they decided to avoid
that, because if the Pugs did in fact try to block this bill, that's
what would have happened.


   
Date: 11 Feb 2009 18:33:30
From: Clave
Subject: Re: I am an idiot on this stimulus Vote.
"A Man Beaten by Jacks" <nobody@fool.foo > wrote in message
news:tvn5p41aft3v558k3qfhdis2pbicd1q9is@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 23:59:00 -0800, "Clave"
> <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@cablespeed.com> wrote:
>
>>"RGP Loner" <aaaa0db@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:bjca66x7jk.ln2@recgroups.com...
>>>I used to think I was pretty astute when it came to the workings of our
>>> Congress.
>
>>> Can somebody explain to me why the senate needed 61 votes to pass this
>>> boondoggle.
>
>>They needed 61 for cloture, not passage.
>
> Well, technically, they don't need more than a majority to do
> anything. But you don't invoke the "Constitutional" or "nuclear"
> option without political fallout. Apparently, they decided to avoid
> that, because if the Pugs did in fact try to block this bill, that's
> what would have happened.

Well, yeah. According to *current* rules, they need 60 (not 61) for
cloture.

Jim




    
Date: 12 Feb 2009 15:07:24
From: A Man Beaten by Jacks
Subject: Re: I am an idiot on this stimulus Vote.
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 18:33:30 -0800, "Clave"
<ClaviusNoSpamDammit@cablespeed.com > wrote:

>"A Man Beaten by Jacks" <nobody@fool.foo> wrote in message
>news:tvn5p41aft3v558k3qfhdis2pbicd1q9is@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 23:59:00 -0800, "Clave"
>> <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@cablespeed.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"RGP Loner" <aaaa0db@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>>>news:bjca66x7jk.ln2@recgroups.com...
>>>>I used to think I was pretty astute when it came to the workings of our
>>>> Congress.
>>
>>>> Can somebody explain to me why the senate needed 61 votes to pass this
>>>> boondoggle.
>>
>>>They needed 61 for cloture, not passage.
>>
>> Well, technically, they don't need more than a majority to do
>> anything. But you don't invoke the "Constitutional" or "nuclear"
>> option without political fallout. Apparently, they decided to avoid
>> that, because if the Pugs did in fact try to block this bill, that's
>> what would have happened.
>
>Well, yeah. According to *current* rules, they need 60 (not 61) for
>cloture.

The Constitution is senior to current rules, which can be suspended by
the majority (and have been on multiple occasions in the past).


     
Date: 12 Feb 2009 19:37:02
From: Clave
Subject: Re: I am an idiot on this stimulus Vote.
"A Man Beaten by Jacks" <nobody@fool.foo > wrote in message
news:j909p4lmfbusj7ab24i8p24fchtqt0oro4@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 18:33:30 -0800, "Clave"
> <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@cablespeed.com> wrote:
>
>>"A Man Beaten by Jacks" <nobody@fool.foo> wrote in message
>>news:tvn5p41aft3v558k3qfhdis2pbicd1q9is@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 23:59:00 -0800, "Clave"
>>> <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@cablespeed.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"RGP Loner" <aaaa0db@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>news:bjca66x7jk.ln2@recgroups.com...
>>>>>I used to think I was pretty astute when it came to the workings of our
>>>>> Congress.
>>>
>>>>> Can somebody explain to me why the senate needed 61 votes to pass this
>>>>> boondoggle.
>>>
>>>>They needed 61 for cloture, not passage.
>>>
>>> Well, technically, they don't need more than a majority to do
>>> anything. But you don't invoke the "Constitutional" or "nuclear"
>>> option without political fallout. Apparently, they decided to avoid
>>> that, because if the Pugs did in fact try to block this bill, that's
>>> what would have happened.
>>
>>Well, yeah. According to *current* rules, they need 60 (not 61) for
>>cloture.
>
> The Constitution is senior to current rules, which can be suspended by
> the majority (and have been on multiple occasions in the past).

Right again -- according to the CotUS, the Senate gets to make its own
rules, and no incoming Senate is bound by the adopted rules of the previous
Senate. Votes required for cloture (and the existence of the filibuster at
all) are such rules.

Jim