Something the Dog Said wrote: A majority of the American public through their senators supported gun control legislation. Unfortunetly a minority was able to thwart the will of the American public by abuse of the filibuster to prevent gun control legislation from even coming to the floor for debate and voting. Hopefully Reid will take steps to prevent this continued abuse from continuing.
That's why we have a Representative Republic... not a democracy. Drives liberals crazy. If a majority of the American public through their senators supported the deporting of all visiting Muslim visa holders... you'd be complaining that the will of the American people was thwarted... I didn't think so.
Something the Dog Said wrote: A majority of the American public through their senators supported gun control legislation. Unfortunetly a minority was able to thwart the will of the American public by abuse of the filibuster to prevent gun control legislation from even coming to the floor for debate and voting. Hopefully Reid will take steps to prevent this continued abuse from continuing.
Protection of the minority from the tyranny of the majority is precisely why we have a coordinate levels of republican governance in our Union and why there is the ability to filibuster legislation in the Senate - to slow down a legislative train being fueled by emotion instead of reason and prevent the mob from running roughshod over the interests of the minority.
Collectivists love the filibuster when it prevents something they oppose from reaching the floor and despise it when it has the same effect on something they support. That right there ought to tell you it is a useful part of the Senate rules that should always be retained.
Nothing is for sure. Hell, the Republicans couldn't even take out President Obama by painting him as a communist Kenyan Muslim who hates America and wants to take away their guns, tax them to death, give away everything to the poor, kill their healthcare system, force them into FEMA camps and replace the Constitution with Sharia Law.
When you plant ice you're going to harvest wind. - Robert Hunter
Soulshiner wrote: Nothing is for sure. Hell, the Republicans couldn't even take out President Obama by painting him as a communist Kenyan Muslim who hates America and wants to take away their guns, tax them to death, give away everything to the poor, kill their healthcare system, force them into FEMA camps and replace the Constitution with Sharia Law.
Oh brother That was quite the hyperbolic rant there. Got a source? lol
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
Something the Dog Said wrote: A majority of the American public through their senators supported gun control legislation. Unfortunetly a minority was able to thwart the will of the American public by abuse of the filibuster to prevent gun control legislation from even coming to the floor for debate and voting. Hopefully Reid will take steps to prevent this continued abuse from continuing.
Protection of the minority from the tyranny of the majority is precisely why we have a coordinate levels of republican governance in our Union and why there is the ability to filibuster legislation in the Senate - to slow down a legislative train being fueled by emotion instead of reason and prevent the mob from running roughshod over the interests of the minority.
Collectivists love the filibuster when it prevents something they oppose from reaching the floor and despise it when it has the same effect on something they support. That right there ought to tell you it is a useful part of the Senate rules that should always be retained.
"Collectivists", you mean as "We the people in order to create a more perfect union". And of course you have it wrong as usual. To claim that the Constitution supports allowing the misuse of a filibuster to prevent debate and voting on legislation that is the will of the people is absolutely incorrect. FYI, the Constitution does not mention the use of a filibuster and it is obvious that Founding Fathers did not intend for results such as this, where a few legislators beholden to special interests prevent the debate and voting on important issues. Why else would the Constitution provide for the VP to cast a vote in the Senate to create or break a tie vote, when current Senate rules prevent such a vote from even occurring? Why would the Constitution provide for the Senate to advise and consent on presidential appointments when the current Senate rules prevent such debate and votes from even occurring.
The only tyranny here is that by a minority of legislators beholden to special interests preventing the debate and voting on important issues of the country.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
FredHayek wrote: And to make it even more exciting former Congressman and penis model Anthony Weiner is running for his old seat.
And, as everyone expected, he is not gaining much support, and the expected winner will be Christine C. Quinn. Just because a disgraced pol decides to stick his toe in the water again, doesn't assure anything... Just ask Mark Sanford.
That was quite the hyperbolic rant there. Got a source? lol
