|
| Author |
Message |
Mike
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 16951
Location: Montgomery, Al
|
|
| Back to top |
|
jigs
Rancher
Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Posts: 6938
Location: KANSAS
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:51 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Mike, you ignorant redneck neocon!
don't you know that the pristine enviroment of Anwar is too valuable as a picturesque landscape, and home to many varieties of life that will be totally lost by drilling??
it is more valuable to keep as it is, rather than get the oil we need.
I would rather see this country bankrupted by high oil than disturb nature.
a simple solution is to ride bikes and walk rather than drive. we all go to solar and wind power for out energy.
and pull out of Iraq...that is the REAL reason for high oil prices...well, when it is not Bushes fault I mean....
The above is a prime example of a Dem, better know as someone "talking out of thier @$$. "
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Mrs.Greg
Rancher
Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 7488
Location: Alberta
|
|
| Back to top |
|
TSR
Rancher
Joined: 27 Apr 2005
Posts: 1761
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Mike
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 16951
Location: Montgomery, Al
|
|
| Back to top |
|
jodywy
Rancher
Joined: 11 Feb 2005
Posts: 2762
Location: western Wyoming easternIdaho... Star Valley
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, the Repubs had control of the House, but did not have total full control of the Senate due to an item known as Cloture. They did not have 60 Repubs in the Senate. Demos used the Cloture item to bargain and obstruct in the Senate.
[url]http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/cloture.htm [/url]
Cloture in the Senate requires cloture - The only procedure by which the Senate can vote to place a time limit on consideration of a bill or other matter, and thereby overcome a filibuster. Under the cloture rule (Rule XXII), the Senate may limit consideration of a pending matter to 30 additional hours, but only by vote of three-fifths of the full Senate, normally 60 votes.
Information about Cloture in the US Senate below:
Filibusters/Cloture
[url]http://www.congresslink.org/print_basics_senaterules.htm#filibusters [/url]
The dearth of debate limitations in Senate rules creates the possibility of filibusters. Individual Senators or minority groups of Senators who adamantly oppose a bill or amendment may speak against it at great length, in the hope of changing their colleagues' minds, winning support for amendments that meet their objections, or convincing the Senate to withdraw the bill or amendment from further consideration on the floor. Opposing Senators also can delay final floor action by offering numerous amendments and motions, insisting that amendments be read in full, demanding roll call votes on amendments and motions, and a using a variety of other devices.
The only formal procedure that Senate rules provide for breaking filibusters is to invoke cloture under the provisions of paragraph 2 of Rule XXII. However, cloture cannot be voted until two days after it is proposed, and a simple majority of the Senate is insufficient to invoke cloture.
Cloture requires the support of three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn, or a minimum of 60 votes (unless the matter being considered changes the standing rules, in which case cloture requires a vote of two-thirds of the Senators present and voting). For this reason alone, cloture can be difficult to invoke and almost always requires some bipartisan support. In addition, some Senators are reluctant to vote for cloture, even if they support the legislation being jeopardized by the filibuster, precisely because the right of extended debate is such an integral element of Senate history and procedure.
Even if the Senate does invoke cloture on a bill (or anything else), the result is not an immediate vote on passing the bill. The cloture rule permits a maximum of thirty additional hours for considering the bill, during which each Senator may speak for one hour. The time consumed by roll call votes and quorum calls is deducted from the thirty hour total; as a result, each Senator does not have an opportunity to speak for a full hour, although he or she is guaranteed at least ten minutes for debate. Thus, cloture does not stop debate immediately; it only ensures that debate cannot continue indefinitely. And even the thirty hours allowed under cloture is quite a long time for the Senate to devote to any one bill, especially since Senators may not be willing to invoke cloture until the bill already has been debated at considerable length.
The link below is to a PDF about Cloture from the Repub website. I suggest downloading it. It is 13 pages long. It has a lot of history about it.
http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/Apr2505ConstOptSD.pdf
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Oldtimer
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 24734
Location: Northeast Montana
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jodywy wrote: |
Yes, the Repubs had control of the House, but did not have total full control of the Senate due to an item known as Cloture. They did not have 60 Repubs in the Senate. Demos used the Cloture item to bargain and obstruct in the Senate.
[url]http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/cloture.htm [/url]
Cloture in the Senate requires cloture - The only procedure by which the Senate can vote to place a time limit on consideration of a bill or other matter, and thereby overcome a filibuster. Under the cloture rule (Rule XXII), the Senate may limit consideration of a pending matter to 30 additional hours, but only by vote of three-fifths of the full Senate, normally 60 votes.
Information about Cloture in the US Senate below:
Filibusters/Cloture
[url]http://www.congresslink.org/print_basics_senaterules.htm#filibusters [/url]
The dearth of debate limitations in Senate rules creates the possibility of filibusters. Individual Senators or minority groups of Senators who adamantly oppose a bill or amendment may speak against it at great length, in the hope of changing their colleagues' minds, winning support for amendments that meet their objections, or convincing the Senate to withdraw the bill or amendment from further consideration on the floor. Opposing Senators also can delay final floor action by offering numerous amendments and motions, insisting that amendments be read in full, demanding roll call votes on amendments and motions, and a using a variety of other devices.
The only formal procedure that Senate rules provide for breaking filibusters is to invoke cloture under the provisions of paragraph 2 of Rule XXII. However, cloture cannot be voted until two days after it is proposed, and a simple majority of the Senate is insufficient to invoke cloture.
Cloture requires the support of three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn, or a minimum of 60 votes (unless the matter being considered changes the standing rules, in which case cloture requires a vote of two-thirds of the Senators present and voting). For this reason alone, cloture can be difficult to invoke and almost always requires some bipartisan support. In addition, some Senators are reluctant to vote for cloture, even if they support the legislation being jeopardized by the filibuster, precisely because the right of extended debate is such an integral element of Senate history and procedure.
Even if the Senate does invoke cloture on a bill (or anything else), the result is not an immediate vote on passing the bill. The cloture rule permits a maximum of thirty additional hours for considering the bill, during which each Senator may speak for one hour. The time consumed by roll call votes and quorum calls is deducted from the thirty hour total; as a result, each Senator does not have an opportunity to speak for a full hour, although he or she is guaranteed at least ten minutes for debate. Thus, cloture does not stop debate immediately; it only ensures that debate cannot continue indefinitely. And even the thirty hours allowed under cloture is quite a long time for the Senate to devote to any one bill, especially since Senators may not be willing to invoke cloture until the bill already has been debated at considerable length.
The link below is to a PDF about Cloture from the Repub website. I suggest downloading it. It is 13 pages long. It has a lot of history about it.
http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/Apr2505ConstOptSD.pdf |
Yep---the same thing the minority Republicans are now using- which is causing the Congress ability to act on many important bills to come to a standstill...
Whatever happened to the old bipartisan compromise working for the betterment of the country and what the wish's of the majority are, that we had years ago- and that GW promised in his campaigning to achieve, but forgot the minute he took office... 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Mike
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 16951
Location: Montgomery, Al
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Oldtimer
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 24734
Location: Northeast Montana
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 4:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mike wrote: |
| Quote: |
Whatever happened to the old bipartisan compromise working for the betterment of the country and what the wish's of the majority are, that we had years ago- and that GW promised in his campaigning to achieve, but forgot the minute he took office...
|
You're not only a HIPPO KRIT!!!! You're a dumba$$ too!!!
GW's not in the Senate. 
Wishes of the Majority? That's called a "Chaotic Democracy".
The wishes of the majority are instilled around who gets voted in. 
What do you want? The country to be run by POLLS? |
Presidents of the past used much of their power to work with the leadership of both houses to work out legislation which was needed/beneficial/believed necessary at the time....Even Clinton did at times....
Now all it seems to be is confrontation- and in doing so is further dividing the population.....
The leaders of this country should try to run this country and set policy by what the feelings of the majority of the people of the country want-instead of the current policy of whichever lobbyiest pays the most money-- and especially not doing as GW has by arrogantly promoting a policy of avoiding enforcement of the laws he doesn't like, while often going against the wishes of the nation... ....Best example is illegal immigrants and the continued invasion of our country thru a border that GW refuses to do his sworn duty to secure....
This is the reason I feel the most power should be retained at the community/state levels where voters are closer to the leadership- and have more direct input....
Problem is they have all become politicians- and we have no statesmen or public servants anymore......
| Quote: |
On April 9 we listed how liberal interest groups rated all the senators. Today we have ratings from the conservative interest groups. What is most striking is how polarized the Senate has become. With one exception, Ben Nelson (D-NE), even the least conservative Republican is more conservative than the most conservative Democrat. It was not like this at all in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. It is not so much that the Democrats have become more liberal as that the Republican party has been completely purged of the likes of Dwight Eisenhower, Nelson Rockefeller, Jacob Javits, and many other moderate Republicans. While Democrats have rid themselves of people like Sen. James Eastland (D-MS) and Sen. John Stennis (D-MS), there are still plenty of conservative Democrats around and not so many liberal firebrands like Barbara Boxer (D-CA). This incredible polarization is why the Senate has basically ceased to function. It used to be that most senators worked across the aisle. Now if a senator has lunch with a senator from the other party he or she can count on this as forming the basis for an attack ad come reelection time.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Comparison/Maps/Apr14.html
|
Last edited by Oldtimer on Tue Apr 15, 2008 6:44 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
Oldtimer
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 24734
Location: Northeast Montana
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 4:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This could be the reason the Administration is still building the national oil stocks daily- and refuses to allow access to them as has been done before during periods of excess prices.....
| Quote: |
Source: U.S. Strike on Iran Nearing
Monday, April 14, 2008 9:37 PM
By: Jim Meyers Article Font Size
Contrary to some claims that the Bush administration will allow diplomacy to handle Iran’s nuclear weapons program, a leading member of America’s Jewish community tells Newsmax that a military strike is not only on the table – but likely.
“Israel is preparing for heavy casualties,” the source said, suggesting that although Israel will not take part in the strike, it is expecting to be the target of Iranian retribution.
“Look at Dick Cheney’s recent trip through the Middle East as preparation for the U.S. attack,” the source said.
Cheney’s hastily arranged 9-day visit to the region, which began on March 16, included stops in Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Oman, Turkey, and the Palestinian territories.
Tensions in the region have been rising.
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/iran_nuclear_strike/2008/04/14/87887.html
|
The Future of Truck drivers under GW Policy.....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Texan
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 2925
Location: East Texas
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Oldtimer wrote: |
| The leaders of this country should try to run this country and set policy by what the feelings of the majority of the people of the country want... |
In that case, I guess we might as well get rid of the Senate. After all, why should a place like Montana have just as much clout in the Senate as a more populated state? To hell with the rural areas and production agriculture - just give the cities what they want?
I KNOW you don't mean that, OT.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Oldtimer
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 24734
Location: Northeast Montana
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Texan wrote: |
| Oldtimer wrote: |
| The leaders of this country should try to run this country and set policy by what the feelings of the majority of the people of the country want... |
In that case, I guess we might as well get rid of the Senate. After all, why should a place like Montana have just as much clout in the Senate as a more populated state? To hell with the rural areas and production agriculture - just give the cities what they want?
I KNOW you don't mean that, OT. |
Thats the reason the peoples house-- the House of Representatives was set up- and the reason they have shot down many of these things like the NAFTA Mexican trucking, immunity, and the immigration bills that have come out of the Senate/White House- which GW just turned around and ignored their wishes anyway....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
