Another reason I dislike politics

[FlaSoxxJim]

What would end up happening is they would filibuster, table the filibuster and introduce a new version without the ANWR provision that would pass. Under the scenario I've seen.

Yep. And the same thing could have happened in the House I believe.

[Rex Kickass]

Actually, no it can't happen in the house. There is no filibuster and the parliamentary tactics that the opposition has in the House is not the same.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Damn tree huggers want to undercut our military and let the Katrina victims freeze. 

 

Ain't politics grand?

 

Let's secede and form a Sovereign SoxTalk Nation.

 

I call I get to be King!

[FlaSoxxJim]

Actually, no it can't happen in the house. There is no filibuster and the parliamentary tactics that the opposition has in the House is not the same.

Oh, that's right. Back to high school civics class for me.

[mreye]

Oh, that's right.  Back to high school civics class for me.

Or to here.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Or to here.

 

Ah, what a wealth of information the SoxTalk community is.

[mreye]

Ah, what a wealth of information the SoxTalk community is.

That was Tex spamming!

[Texsox]

That was Tex spamming! 

 

Hell, if Jas is going to name the forum for it, I figured we should know what the hell one is. All I know I learned on West Wing

[southsider2k5]

HERE'S HOW ENERGY INDEPENDENCE IS DEBATED IN THE SENATE 

 

A friend in Washington writes:

 

As I write this, Senate Democrats are angrily denouncing on the floor of the Senate the inclusion of the ANWR provision in an appropriations conference report since it was not originally part of the defense spending bill when it passed either the Senate or the House. Specifically, Senate Rule XXVIII states that “[c]onferees shall not insert in their report matter not committed to them by either House, nor shall they strike from the bill matter agreed to by both Houses.” It is interesting to note that the ANWR provision was not included in budget reconciliation. Had it been included, it would have required only 51 votes to pass. As part of the defense spending bill, it now requires 60 votes to pass. The argument that Republicans are trying to subvert democracy by increasing the amount of votes necessary for passage of this provision is a bit odd.

 

What is most interesting, however, is that several sitting Senate Democrats, including the current minority leader, voted to effectively change the very same Senate rule in 1996. The Chair ruled the conference report to be out of order, and the Chair’s ruling was then appealed. Thus, a “nay” vote was effectively a rejection of the ruling (and a vote to change the rules), and a “yea” vote effectively sustained the ruling. Minority Leader Reid not only voted to reject the ruling and change Senate precedent regarding Rule XXVIII, he also voted to pass, with the help of 43 other Democrats, the very same bill that effectively changed Senate rule.

 

I hope you find this information to be useful as the debate over energy independence unfolds.

[Texsox]

We know this whole tack it on is a bi-partisan ploy. But it is a gross misstatement that by tacking it on and needing 60 votes it somehow made it more difficult or even wasn't trying to subvert is a joke. By tacking it on to something that had to be passed, they made voting against it almost impossible.

[Rex Kickass]

Yet its going to be filibustered and not only does it have support from hardcore liberals like Joe Lieberman but also the few moderate Republican Senators don't seem to be supporting this as well.

 

With Joementum behind the filibuster, how can it fail?

[Mercy!]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When you use someone else's work, could you reference your source, please. Thanks.

[Balta1701]

We know this whole tack it on is a bi-partisan ploy. But it is a gross misstatement that by tacking it on and needing 60 votes it somehow made it more difficult or even wasn't trying to subvert is a joke. By tacking it on to something that had to be passed, they made voting against it almost impossible.

Personally, I think that an even more disgusting misstatement in there is saying that drilling up there has anything at all to do with "Energy independence".

[Balta1701]

I guess This is similar to the stuff 2k5 posted about:

 

You all remember the rule for budget reconciliation bills, don't you? Sure you do. The basic agreement is that they can't be filibustered (gotta pass a budget, after all) but that the bill can only include things that actually have an impact on the budget. Otherwise congressional leaders would just toss everything in the world into each year's budget bill in order to avoid the possibility of filibuster.

 

Today, Mark Schmitt explains how the Republican leadership managed to figure out a way to stuff increased work requirements for welfare recipients into this year's budget bill:

 

    Let's say, for argument's sake, that we all agreed that the work requirements for welfare recipients should be even tighter than they are. You could increase them somewhat, all states would comply, and people on welfare would work more. But that would have no budget impact. You couldn't get away with sneaking into budget reconciliation.

 

    Or, you could increase the requirements to a ridiculous level, where states would find it easier to pay a fine than to spend what it takes to get people working....The result: Now you have a budget impact and you can sneak welfare reauthorization into the budget reconciliation bill. But welfare recipients in those states that don't comply won't work more. In fact, they'll probably work even less than they would under the first plan.

 

Charming, isn't it? Republicans deliberately tightened the requirements so much that they knew no one would comply. Result: they get to look tough on welfare, they get to use budget reconciliation rules to pass a bill that has nothing to with the budget, and they end up having less actual impact on work requirements than if they'd taken the whole thing seriously in the first place. It's as if they wanted to reduce speed limits in Washington DC and decided to reduce them to 15 mph solely because that would generate lots of fines and would therefore have a budget impact.

[southsider2k5]

When you use someone else's work, could you reference your source, please.  Thanks.

 

I take it you missed the very start of this thread, because otherwise you are just picking on me, and now I have to cry about it

[Texsox]

I take it you missed the very start of this thread, because otherwise you are just picking on me, and now I have to cry about it            

 

Yours was an opinion piece.

[southsider2k5]

Yours was an opinion piece. 

 

Ah, only opinions need to be sited... I see now.

[Texsox]

Ah, only opinions need to be sited... I see now.

 

BTW, who did say that?

[Mercy!]

I take it you missed the very start of this thread, because otherwise you are just picking on me, and now I have to cry about it            

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Please don't cry.

 

You are absolutely correct. I missed the fact that Tex also was engaging in plagiarism. I seem to recall busting his chops on some previous occasion for this practice. At any rate, it is so easy to cut and paste the attribution as well as the text. I always like to think how I would feel if someone were appropriating my work without giving me any credit.

 

The one place where all this goes off the tracks for me is where I make use of someone else's photos or other graphics. The best I can say in my defense is that I usually am providing a link which someone can follow back.