Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ahtman wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Frazzled wrote:And by feeding most of the popoulation you mean the army and the Communist party right?

A lot of it with US food aid as well.

That is become we are awesome and our food is delicious.

And enormous government subsidies to farmers.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Frazzled wrote:And by feeding most of the popoulation you mean the army and the Communist party right?

A lot of it with US food aid as well.

That is become we are awesome and our food is delicious.

And enormous government subsidies to farmers.

Well, we don't like to brag....

Oh yes, you doooooo!

BearersOfSalvation wrote:
The republicans have not had one actual filibuster, they just threaten to filibuster and the democrats fold. If the democrats really didn't like the filibusters, they could at least force it to a vote, and modify the procedural rules to require someone to actually do a proper 'stand up and talk for days straight' filibuster, but they don't.

LOL Wut?!? So I guess the record number of cloture votes during the 111th congress was just because the Dems felt like getting together and stopping non-existant filibusters? Cloture was invoked over 60 times and there were over 140 cloture votes. Now, unless the rules have changed in the 200 years since this was all put down, there wouldn't be any invoking of cloture if a filibuster didn't exist.

A record number of filibusters from the party of no.

Some may remember the hold-up on the unemployment benefits legislation when the Republicans deadlocked it for several months with filibusters.

agnosto wrote:LOL Wut?!? So I guess the record number of cloture votes during the 111th congress was just because the Dems felt like getting together and stopping non-existant filibusters? Cloture was invoked over 60 times and there were over 140 cloture votes. Now, unless the rules have changed in the 200 years since this was all put down, there wouldn't be any invoking of cloture if a filibuster didn't exist.

The rules involving cloture have changed many times in the past 200 years, and as far as I know the republicans have not been forced to perform an actual filibuster. The Democrats sit back and let the republicans say 'oh, OK, we're filibustering', and if they can't get a cloture vote through then they just drop the bill or make concessions. They don't make anyone claiming to filibuster actually show up and keep talking to stop the vote, they just say 'oh, you threatened to filibuster, we'll either get cloture or give in'.

Some may remember the hold-up on the unemployment benefits legislation when the Republicans deadlocked it for several months with filibusters.

What you're calling a filibuster is really just the threat of a filibuster, they're not actually standing up and reading recipes into the congressional record for days on end.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:Can you give some historical examples of this happening? Or is the 'well run dictatorship' something that's never actually been seen?

Given that most dictatorships aren't run by benevolent overlords the answer's sort of obvious.

Out of interest, since for the past two years the Democratic party held majorities in the President, the House and the Senate, how was the Republican party able to stop Democratic legislation from going through?

Or am I wrong, and the Democrats passed whatever they wanted?

Because the Democrats were total pussies.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Out of interest, since for the past two years the Democratic party held majorities in the President, the House and the Senate, how was the Republican party able to stop Democratic legislation from going through?

Or am I wrong, and the Democrats passed whatever they wanted?

You are correct. For the first year, they further had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:
The rules involving cloture have changed many times in the past 200 years, and as far as I know the republicans have not been forced to perform an actual filibuster. The Democrats sit back and let the republicans say 'oh, OK, we're filibustering', and if they can't get a cloture vote through then they just drop the bill or make concessions. They don't make anyone claiming to filibuster actually show up and keep talking to stop the vote, they just say 'oh, you threatened to filibuster, we'll either get cloture or give in'.

Funny how the Senate would disagree with your interpretation where they state that:
"The cloture rule–Rule 22–is the only formal procedure that Senate rules provide for breaking a filibuster. A filibuster is an attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter. Under cloture, the Senate may limit consideration of a pending matter to 30 additional hours of debate.
http://www.senate.gov/reference/reference_index_subjects/Cloture_vrd.htm

I think you're limiting yourself in interpretation of the word "filibuster" there's no time limit involved; a Senator doesn't have to be a Huey P. Long or Strom Thurmond to enact a filibuster, in fact those two were the exception to the rule, not the norm.

Another form of filibuster is to attempt to throw random amendments on the bill that is up for discussion, such "dilatory" practices are the definition of a filibuster as the senate must then vote on the proposed amendments.

What you have seen with this congress is that the Republicans begin a filibuster attempt and then a motion of cloture is called.
Check out the recent history of cloture motions; it's interesting the number of times that they withdraw the motion so that they may regroup and come back with enough votes to pass it.
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/111.htm

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Out of interest, since for the past two years the Democratic party held majorities in the President, the House and the Senate, how was the Republican party able to stop Democratic legislation from going through?

Or am I wrong, and the Democrats passed whatever they wanted?

You are correct. For the first year, they further had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.

So there was no effective opposition to Democrat sponsored legislation?

gorgon wrote:

olympia wrote:No way frazzled. Dictatorships, ounce for ounce, out perform democracies. Recall that the DPRK has an economy of comparable size to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Yet the DPRK has gone nuclear and has one of the largest armies in the entire world. It has accomplished this while managing to feed most of its population and providing child vaccinations that are second to none. Furthermore, no continental democracy could or in fact did stomach the carnage and mayhem visited upon the belligerents of the second world war.

Frazz is correct. You have zero idea what you're talking about.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/33/47307495_9286b3c0d1.jpg

This proves only that the capitalist west are profligate energy users.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Out of interest, since for the past two years the Democratic party held majorities in the President, the House and the Senate, how was the Republican party able to stop Democratic legislation from going through?

Or am I wrong, and the Democrats passed whatever they wanted?

You are correct. For the first year, they further had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.

So there was no effective opposition to Democrat sponsored legislation?

They could shout a lot and go on Fox News and ...er shout a lot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

olympia wrote:

gorgon wrote:

olympia wrote:No way frazzled. Dictatorships, ounce for ounce, out perform democracies. Recall that the DPRK has an economy of comparable size to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Yet the DPRK has gone nuclear and has one of the largest armies in the entire world. It has accomplished this while managing to feed most of its population and providing child vaccinations that are second to none. Furthermore, no continental democracy could or in fact did stomach the carnage and mayhem visited upon the belligerents of the second world war.

Frazz is correct. You have zero idea what you're talking about.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/33/47307495_9286b3c0d1.jpg

This proves only that the capitalist west are profligate energy users.

I can't tell if we're dealing with sarcasm or someone who's truly drank the Koolaid.

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Out of interest, since for the past two years the Democratic party held majorities in the President, the House and the Senate, how was the Republican party able to stop Democratic legislation from going through?

Or am I wrong, and the Democrats passed whatever they wanted?

You are correct. For the first year, they further had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.

So there was no effective opposition to Democrat sponsored legislation?

They could shout a lot and go on Fox News and ...er shout a lot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

olympia wrote:

gorgon wrote:

olympia wrote:No way frazzled. Dictatorships, ounce for ounce, out perform democracies. Recall that the DPRK has an economy of comparable size to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Yet the DPRK has gone nuclear and has one of the largest armies in the entire world. It has accomplished this while managing to feed most of its population and providing child vaccinations that are second to none. Furthermore, no continental democracy could or in fact did stomach the carnage and mayhem visited upon the belligerents of the second world war.

Frazz is correct. You have zero idea what you're talking about.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/33/47307495_9286b3c0d1.jpg

This proves only that the capitalist west are profligate energy users.

I can't tell if we're dealing with sarcasm or someone who's truly drank the Koolaid.

Kool-aid--another orphan of a bankrupt culture

See, your first response looked sarcastic. Then you had that follow up about South Korea and I thought you were being serious. You are slippery like an eel, Mr. Olympia.

gorgon wrote:See, your first response looked sarcastic. Then you had that follow up about South Korea and I thought you were being serious. You are slippery like an eel, Mr. Olympia.

Well the paraphrasing of Hans Gruber should seal the deal

You're good Olympia...

(who's hans gruber?)

Frazzled wrote:You're good Olympia...

(who's hans gruber?)

gorgon wrote:See, your first response looked sarcastic. Then you had that follow up about South Korea and I thought you were being serious. You are slippery like an eel, Mr. Olympia.

DPRK is N. Korea. S. Korea has a much larger GDP than Harrisburg PA (understatement). And they haven't had a dictator for some time now.

I'm having difficulty in understanding the situation.

Apparently the Democrats had absolute power (within the Constitution) to do whatever they wanted. Yet they failed to pass the bills they wanted to pass, such as Health Care Reform, without enormous delays and changes.

How is the government going to do anything now that power is divided?

Frazzled wrote:

(who's hans gruber?)

The villain in Die Hard that would later kill Dumbledore! He's an American Classic (via the UK).

agnosto wrote:

gorgon wrote:See, your first response looked sarcastic. Then you had that follow up about South Korea and I thought you were being serious. You are slippery like an eel, Mr. Olympia.

DPRK is N. Korea. S. Korea has a much larger GDP than Harrisburg PA (understatement). And they haven't had a dictator for some time now.

His initial comment was about DPRK. The Harrisburg comment was in connection with the DPRK. The follow-up was about ROK. That's when he had me thinking he might be serious.

@Kilkrazy -- Because they have to compromise and pass *something*, else they'll get voted out of office too. So prepare for a lot of "small" legislation that the Dems and GOP can find common ground on, as opposed to any big ideas or wrestling with big problems. Basically like Bill Clinton's entire presidency.

Didn't the Republicans spend years and millions of dollars going after Clinton?

Kilkrazy wrote:I'm having difficulty in understanding the situation.

Apparently the Democrats had absolute power (within the Constitution) to do whatever they wanted. Yet they failed to pass the bills they wanted to pass, such as Health Care Reform, without enormous delays and changes.

How is the government going to do anything now that power is divided?

Passing more realistic legislation.

Both sides need to appear that they are progressing their agenda if not, you get what happened this week...bloodletting (more blood for the political machine!).

Frazz is right, sharing government is going to turn out legislation that will be more realistic and balanced instead of "her der, we're going to fine you if you're too broke to buy insurance, her der".

To get anything accomplished, both sides are going to need to work together at least some of the time.

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I'm having difficulty in understanding the situation.

Apparently the Democrats had absolute power (within the Constitution) to do whatever they wanted. Yet they failed to pass the bills they wanted to pass, such as Health Care Reform, without enormous delays and changes.

How is the government going to do anything now that power is divided?

Passing more realistic legislation.

So, when one side was able to ram through any legislation they wanted, no matter how loopy, nothing got done?

Now that no-one can force through any legislation, both sides will agree on a sensible compromise and lots will get done?

I'm just not seeing the logic.

Democrats are notorious for imploding, and that is hat happened. They seek the power to do what they want, but when they get it they freak out. While the Republicans are far from homogeneous, they are much less fractious.