02/24/2010 11:05:31 PM EST

Reconciliation 2010 = Nuclear Option 2005

posted by bobo1

Hey guys, just wondering how the "nuclear option" that was dreaded by the then minority party Democrats is now being called "Reconciliation" and being promoted by those same Democrats.

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook
The video speaks for itself. Remember, the "Nuclear Option" and "Reconciliation" are the same thing...

:)

< Olbermann's Special Comment | The terrible tax burden of the wealthy >
 Display:
Reconciliation 2010 = Nuclear Option 2005 | 42 comments (42 topical, 0 hidden)
how much more stupid can this asswipe get? (none / 1)
Bobo1 = Fucking Moron

Haven't you been embarrassed enough?

by designs on 02/24/2010 11:12:04 PM EST

Why would I be embarrassed? (none / 0)
Is there something factually wrong with my statement? The Video?

Tell me where its wrong, and I'll be happy to be embarrassed for your satisfaction...

When Bush wanted his judges in 2005, he wanted to use what we call today reconciliation. The Democrats had a bloody fit (as shown by the video).

Now the Democrats want to use Reconciliation to pass the Health Care Bill.

Its the same exact process, is it not?

Again, tell me where I'm wrong.

Name calling only makes you look like you can't come up with a better response.

:)

by bobo1 on 02/24/2010 11:24:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
It was so much fun watching Rachel Maddow (none / 1)
wiping her ass all over your face bobo

by gatekeeper50 on 02/24/2010 11:27:15 PM EST

Thank you for the video... (none / 0)
No matter what you call it, the same thing is happening.

The Democrats want to change the rules to pass something they want (Health Care)

Back in 2005, the Republicans wanted to change the rules to pass something that they wanted (Judges)

You can throw legal wikipedia definitions around all you want. The intent and the action are the same.

The Democrats are trying to change the rules just like the Republicans tried back in 2005.

So again, where's the difference?

by bobo1 on 02/24/2010 11:43:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
translation (none / 0)
here's your quote

"You can throw legal wikipedia definitions around all you want. "

here's the translation, you can throw around facts all you want.

if you're immune to facts there is no need to have a conversation with you. that is all.

by kingbane on 02/25/2010 12:09:59 AM EST

[ Parent ]
It is very apparent that you don't listen to words (none / 1)
spoken in plain American.  The reconciliation process is not a change in the rules.  It is using the existing senate rules.  Please watch republican senator judd gregg starting at 3:18 explain that reconciliation is a "rule of the senate."  Not a change in the rules.

by gatekeeper50 on 02/25/2010 12:44:17 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Fine goal (none / 0)

I give you credit for having the guts to say your goal is the destruction of the Democratic party. Rooting for parties over people is what a large percentage of the population does, but rarely admit to.

I find you opinion to be repugnant, anti American, small minded and ignorant. I have no desire to "destroy" people or organizations who think they are on the cheer leading squad for one side or the other. Exposing your non thought as angry stupidity is good enough.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

by finerbiner on 02/25/2010 10:36:48 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Lets check our history (none / 0)
Repugnantans added a rule in the judiciary committee while Clinton was in office (I believe it was the Blue card rule). Any senator on the committee could "Blue card" a nominee anonomously, blocking them from leaving committee. Repuke blocked DOZENS (60+ if I recall)of Clinton's appointments this way and others. When Bush was elected that rule was removed, isn't that convenient! The Dems filibustered a literal handfull of hard right wing judical nominees and holy sh|t, it was UNPRECEDENTED!!! It's the same now, the right is completely devoid of integrity, they will lie, cheat, and  steal to get their way, then project it on the Dems when they find it politically adventagous.
  Did you even watch the Maddow clip?!?! She shot 2 dozen holes in the argument that this is somehow different from what the repugs have done in the past with reconsiliation or filibusters. You are just plain wrong, but you'll never see that because you are impervious to facts , but not right wing propaganda. 

by The IDGE on 02/25/2010 12:50:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
A short list (none / 0)
GOP Opposition Slows Obama's Judicial Nominees
Jeff Sessions to try to filibuster Obama judicial nominee

GOP weighs filibuster of judge nominee
According to the Department of Justice, Mr. Obama has to date nominated 27 people to the federal courts, and five have been confirmed: Justice Sotomayor, one appeals court judge and three district court judges.

That pace has sparked a heated debate, with Democrats saying Republicans are obstructing the process and the GOP Republicans saying they're doing more than Democrats did for Mr. Bush.

"Rather than continued progress, we see Senate Republicans resorting to their bag of procedural treats to delay and obstruct," Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat, said in a recent floor speech. "They have ratcheted up the partisanship and seek to impose ideological litmus tests."

Mr. Leahy argued that Democrats made good progress during the Bush administration and said the nine circuit court vacancies at one point last year were the lowest total in more than a decade.

He also said the five judicial nominees that the Senate has confirmed so far this year represent less than a third of the pace in 2001.

But Republicans said when both circuit and district court nominees are considered, they are doing more than Senate Democrats allowed under Mr. Bush.

Republicans said they've held hearings for 74 percent of Mr. Obama's judicial nominees, compared with 44 percent of Mr. Bush's at the same point; have passed 56 percent of Mr. Obama's nominees out of committee, compared with 28 percent for Mr. Bush at this time; and have given Mr. Obama's circuit court nominees hearings an average of 53 days after nomination 123 days less fewer than Democrats allowed for Mr. Bush in his first two years.

Conservatives were split in 2005 on whether Republicans should employ the nuclear option and remain split today on whether to use the Democrats' own filibuster weapon against them.

by gatekeeper50 on 02/25/2010 05:44:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Why, I never said that (none / 0)
Repugs filibustered Clinton nominees. What I said was they changed the judical blue card (blue slip actually) rule for their own benefit. If you need a link to explain it here you go, http://www.washingtonmonthl y.com/archives/individual/2 004_11/005136.php .
and another, http://www.cbsnews.com/stor ies/2005/03/25/opinion/main 683182.shtml
Not to mention that repugs invented the judicial filibuster for Abe Fortes. http://www.senate.gov/artan dhistory/history/minute/Fil ibuster_Derails_Supreme_Cou rt_Appointment.htm

Thats all the time I have to spend on you, KenTXass

by The IDGE on 03/01/2010 12:54:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You know this is a lie. (none / 0)

Reconciliation is not the "nuclear option".  Reconciliation has been used frequently.  Those Democrats shown in this clip are all either spineless or corporatist liars for not passing any of their agenda with the power they have been granted.  But they _are_ granted the power to pass budgetary items through with a majority without changing any Senate rules.

And you know this.  Your post is a lie, your question about hypocrisy is inaccurate, since in 2005 they were talking about a different procedure.  In addition, not a single one of these politicians is advocating for the nuclear option today.  Some aren't even advocating for reconciliation, which is typically the way in which almost all health-related bills have passed in America.

I have given up on you.  You ARE this dense and ignorant.  You don't know history, you don't know civics, you don't know anything other than a quilt of completely fabricated propaganda from AM radio and a bunch of corporate shill "think tanks."  You can say whatever you want about me--that I am strident, extremist (give me a break), over-worried about the death of the country--whatever.  But you don't know any facts and you aren't trying to learn any new ones.  You live in your own universe that collapses if you try to examine its glaring contradictions, which you never do.  You are a terrorist sympathizer and a proud enabler of fascism, and you bring nothing to this forum other than hatred and non-serious Conserva-lusional tripe.  And you are too dense to see that the Liberals you hate are actually the good guys;  the only ones fighting hopelessly for you and for the principles of America.  

by Milltycoon on 02/24/2010 11:27:20 PM EST

Copied from wikipedia (none / 0)

In U.S. politics, the nuclear option is an attempt by a majority of the United States Senate to end a filibuster by invoking a point of order to essentially declare the filibuster unconstitutional which can be decided by a simple majority, rather than seeking formal cloture with a supermajority of 60 senators. Although it is not provided for in the formal rules of the Senate, the procedure is the subject of a 1957 parliamentary opinion and has been used on several occasions since. The term was coined by Senator Trent Lott (Republican of Mississippi) in 2005;<sup>[1]</sup> prior to this it was known as the constitutional option.<sup>[2]</sup>

Now go look up "budget reconciliation".  See how simple it is to find out these things for yourself?

<sup></sup>

by bfaul on 02/24/2010 11:35:35 PM EST

I'm not sure we bother with his asshat.... (none / 0)
History of Reconciliation Process

All they have left is lies and stupidity.
The country grows weary of the GOP.

by designs on 02/24/2010 11:40:47 PM EST

The country grows weary... (none / 1)
Of lying Democrats running our country into the ground.

Our country grows tired of being called idiots by Liberals.

Our country grows tired of Obama and his Chicago "Thugocracy".

We'll see who's tired of who in November...

:)

by bobo1 on 02/24/2010 11:52:04 PM EST

[ Parent ]
uh (none / 0)
you need to replace "our country" with just "me" you dont speak for the entire country. liberals dont call your country idiots, they just call YOU an idiot.

by kingbane on 02/25/2010 12:11:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Is name calling all you have to offer? (none / 1)
Whoa to be a Liberal in 2010 - It must be a very scary existence...

Don't worry, your kind will be out of power really soon, so you wont have to carry that weight of civic responsibility around with you...

:)

by bobo1 on 02/25/2010 12:14:19 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Do some research, bobo (none / 0)
Go find out how many times Bush pushed his corporate agenda through congress by the reconciliation process and report back to me. Then, when we've established that you have an accurate figure, we'll discuss whether its valid for you to compare this to the "nuclear option". Good luck, brother.

by hazmat on 02/24/2010 11:52:17 PM EST

I encourage the Democrats (none / 1)
To use the Reconciliation/Nuclear Option for health Care, Hazzie...

I want them to put something through that the over whelming majority of people in America are now opposed to...

I dont care what you guys call it. PLEASE tell them to do it so Conservatives can rub it all over them in November.

Thanks for your contribution as always, hazzie...

:)

by bobo1 on 02/25/2010 12:16:54 AM EST

[ Parent ]
LOL (none / 0)
If Democrats are going to lose big in NOV for passing the HC Bill ......... what's the reason for all the commotion by you Republicans if they use Reconciliation to pass the Bill.

I will never understand you Retards!!!!!!

A Proud Progressive!!!

by teron678 on 02/25/2010 12:25:45 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Its again to demonstrate... (none / 1)
The absolute deception and under-handedness of Liberals when they are in power.

Its to demonstrate again to the independents and other non  Commie (your favorite term this week) voters that Democrats are bad for America...

That's why it needs to be said over & over again.

:)

by bobo1 on 02/25/2010 12:32:41 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Careful Bobo (none / 1)
Your Republicanism is showing, again.

"No, you are a paid blogger assigned to counter anyone that posts something negative about the government or Obama." by Mcamelyne II on 05/17/2011

by Robrob on 02/25/2010 12:56:35 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Data (none / 2)
Once again, thanks for completely ignoring the challenge. Very well. Since you say "over whelming [sic] majority of people in America are now opposed to..." the health care bill, let's look at some data:

Based on this data, it can accurately be stated that the overwhelming majority of Americans are opposed to the healthcare bill. Ken has already demonstrated that he can't add, so I'll put the question to you. Based on this data, what percentage of Americans favor the republican approach over the democratic approach and vice versa? Go on, I'll wait.

...

...

Ready? Here's a helpful guide I've prepared for you. If we're talking about coverage, 32% favor your approach, vs 57% who favor the democratic approach.

If you ask "people in America" how they feel about the cost control in the bill, you can infer that even fewer of them favor the republican approach (24%) vs something at least as good as the democratic alternative (60%!!!).

If you ask them about health insurance specifically, 26% favor the republican approach (do nothing) vs a whopping 60% for something as good as the democratic bill or better. When was the last time 60% of Americans supported anything? So how did you do?

"Thanks for your contribution as always, hazzie..."

Anytime bro.

by hazmat on 02/25/2010 01:10:45 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Bobo1 (none / 0)
You can't be that stupid .... oh .. but i tend to forget you're a Republican.

You folks take pride in being ignorant & hypocrites.

A Proud Progressive!!!

by teron678 on 02/25/2010 12:15:27 AM EST

It's so great that without me around (none / 0)

bobo is finally free to have substantive, honest, productive debates on the facts of the issues.  Let's all watch as he repeats todays talking point (reconciliation=nuclear option) over and over and OVER AND OVER again.

It doesn't matter if it's true.  He'll even tell you that.

by Spencer on 02/25/2010 12:40:17 AM EST

I finally found a video that bobo can relate to .. (none / 1)
it's one of himself repeating a rethuglican talking point over and over again --- I guess he's having a hard time getting it to sink in ------>

by gatekeeper50 on 02/25/2010 12:52:41 AM EST

Why does he insist on using words (none / 0)
He doesn't understand?

Oh, that's right... nevermind.

"No, you are a paid blogger assigned to counter anyone that posts something negative about the government or Obama." by Mcamelyne II on 05/17/2011

by Robrob on 02/25/2010 12:57:49 AM EST

It's posts like this that make me wonder... (none / 0)
why so many participants in this forum chose KenTX to boycott.  Next to this tripe, his posts seem sensible.

by richardshort2001 on 02/25/2010 02:19:50 AM EST

We thought of adding bobo (none / 0)

for the reason you pointed out but we would be in violation of the Americans with Disabilities act.

Besides, I can't think of a better representative of mainstream conservative thought than bobo.

One wonders if he is serious or just having some fun. 

Naaaa...he's serious.

by MRFred on 02/25/2010 09:18:50 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Is insanity catching? (none / 1)
I go away for a while and look at what happens.

If I remember correctly you are a teacher yes?

As an educator you should have a great respect for facts. The facts in this case do not support your arguement.

This is a false equivilant. Fact reconciliation has been used numerous times to reform health care. Fact over the last 20 years the Pubs have used reconciliation more than Dems (to pass their agendas). Fact the majority of Americans want health care reformed.

It is really funny to compare a handful of filibusters made by Dems (2001-2009) to the full scale blockage of anything or anyone (2009-2010) Between Holds and filibusters.

your arguement is illogical, that is unless there is another purpose behind this. I cannot believe that "you" believe this tripe.

I am left with 1 of 2 reasonable explainations for this either you are being paid to promote Pub talking points on a liberal web sight or you are seeking attention and just throwing anything you can to provoke a response from a reliably liberal websight.

Dude I have had dialog with you before and you usually made a reasoned case for your position (whether i agreed with it or not) now you sound like a shrill or a troll.

by LORD FOUL on 02/25/2010 01:36:11 PM EST

Simple explaination (none / 0)
1) He's in his manic phase.

2) He's simply repeating what he hears on RWnut radio.

3) He doesn't really understand the subject.

4) IOKIYR.

"No, you are a paid blogger assigned to counter anyone that posts something negative about the government or Obama." by Mcamelyne II on 05/17/2011

by Robrob on 02/25/2010 07:01:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Im glad to see you back!!! (none / 0)
Its been too long, really!

You are partially right in saying that I'm just trying to spur a reaction and debate from the people.

I understand that there is a legal and logistic difference in reconciliation and the "Nuclear Option", but in plain view they are both maneuvers to bypass normal Senate rules. To me, its 6 on one end and a half dozen on the other.

I don't understand what the big difference is? Democrats get to whine, rant and bitch about it, but if a Republican says anything than they are slammed for partisanship.

On the other hand, the main objective is to stop Obama at all costs. We cannot afford the Obama agenda and we certainly cannot accept his "vision" of the future...

I didn't have the opportunity to watch the whole TV lovefest from today, but I'm sure it was useless and unproductive.

Anyway, its good to see you here on the forum again. Its been nothing but "Get rid of Ken" and "Why Can't We Just Kill Conservatives" around here without you!

:)

by bobo1 on 02/25/2010 07:09:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Once again admitting his Republicanism (none / 0)
"On the other hand, the main objective is to stop Obama at all costs. We cannot afford the Obama agenda and we certainly cannot accept his "vision" of the future..."

The only real question is why he pretends otherwise?

"No, you are a paid blogger assigned to counter anyone that posts something negative about the government or Obama." by Mcamelyne II on 05/17/2011

by Robrob on 02/25/2010 07:15:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
When have I ever... (none / 1)
Stated otherwise?

Can we afford all of this, especially after Democrats approved all that war spending since 2007?

I think not...

:)

by bobo1 on 02/25/2010 07:27:30 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You constantly claim (none / 0)
NOT to be a conservative/republican. You constantly claim to be "impartial." You even claim to have voted for Obama.

Yet you also constantly make statements which betray you for what you are - a conservative/republican.

If there's no shame in being what you are. Why do you pretend otherwise?

"No, you are a paid blogger assigned to counter anyone that posts something negative about the government or Obama." by Mcamelyne II on 05/17/2011

by Robrob on 02/25/2010 10:45:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yeah Yeah... (none / 1)
But that was back when appearing to be an Obama supporter was cool!

Now its like the plague. Why would I want to willingly associate myself with that?

Plus, once you're a Conservative, way down deep inside you are ALWAYS a Conservative. Just ask Cenk...

:)

by bobo1 on 02/25/2010 11:05:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
No one really cares what you think (none / 0)
But what's interesting is your constant attempts to try and pretend you are something you're not.

Why are you so ashamed of yourself?

"No, you are a paid blogger assigned to counter anyone that posts something negative about the government or Obama." by Mcamelyne II on 05/17/2011

by Robrob on 02/26/2010 12:08:15 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Nothing about you is real (none / 0)
Why would I want to willingly associate myself with that?

You tell us. You've been associating yourself with morons ever since you showed up here...and that hasn't been cool since 1989.

by OneHitKill on 02/26/2010 07:30:47 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I would be ashamed... (none / 0)

...if I were a Conservative or Republican nowadays. How many Taliban sympathizers do you think should be ashamed for advocating the things they do?

Sadly, shame is lost on the stupid and the crazy (i.e. the Conservative movement).

by Milltycoon on 02/25/2010 11:11:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Conservative (none / 0)
There is nothing wrong with being a "conservative" or a "liberal" when combined with rational thought.

Take Health Care for example. What do we know about it? We know that the costs are going up far faster than inflation. We pay 2 to 3 times more than our competitors overseas and we don't even cover everyone. How can this be?

The answer is that we have the most inefficeint system of paying for health care. We have universal health care already. If a 25 year old man has a heart attack, he gets taken to the ER and treated. He has no insurance. He gets billed. A collection agency harasses him. He ends up in bankruptcy. Paying subscribers end up with the bill. A sick person avoids going to the doctor because he has no insurance. He goes around infecting everyone he comes in contact with (insured and uninsured).
A young person has a dull pain in his stomach. He ignores it. He waits, eventually he gets a job that provides insurance. He seeks treatment and finds out he has cancer and needs "really expensive treatment" (treatment that would have been much cheaper had it been detected earlier. I could go on. This simply makes no sense.

Businesses are being hurt trying to keep up with health care costs. Making them less competative with their competition overseas. Even the companies with no insurance are at a disadvantage. While foreign workers get treated when sick, our don't, hurting productivity. Either way our entire free enterprise system is being weakened for the benefit of 5 or 6 health insurance companies?

It doesn't make sense to maintain the status quo. Common sense suggests that we really look at what we are doing, (as compared to our competitors), and finding a better way.

What angers me is that there seems to be no logic concerning the real proposals being made. I hear screams of socialism. I hear trumpted up horror storys about health care overseas but never a true and rational arguement. The Dems (who want universal health care) didn't even have a seat at the table yesterday. A "public option" seems to be as far as Obama is willing to go. Why is this so bad? Really? No screams of socialism, no false accusations of killing granny, or govt take over of health care. I would like to hear a clear concise and honest reason for opposition. Are the profits of 5 or 6 insurance companies really worth destroying our entire economy? Are 5 or 6 companies really worth damaging every other company in America?

Yesterday the Pubs had a chance to make suggestions and recomendations but instead decided to engage Dems in a battle of talking points, which to me made no sense. They already knew what the Dems were planning. They know they cannot stop them. They should have come in there with their own "public option" proposal to compete with the Dem proposal. Instead we got the Frank Luntz talking points show. Sure, to stir up the base but little else.

I do not believe that a political party is "the" country. That to me is the Facist (right) or Communist (left) thinking. Country should come first. Having an efficeint, cost effective health care system
is in our country's best interest both from a business perspective and a people perspective. To me this isn't a liberal or conservative issue, it is a common sense issue. Don't you agree?

by LORD FOUL on 02/26/2010 08:04:06 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Like Rep. James Clyburn said yesterday (none / 0)
Health Care is a RIGHT not just a Privilege.

by gatekeeper50 on 02/26/2010 09:31:53 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I will agree... (none / 0)
That we need a more cost effective system for health care. I personally am in favor of a single payer system, but I know that's a pipe dream. I figure if we are going to get taxed like we do, then we ought to get some benefit for it!

But as to the current proposal set forth by the Democrats, its absolute shit. Its another corporate giveaway, forcing people to give their money to those 5 or 6 companies you describe. The Democrats have really screwed the pooch on this one, and now the mission has become to eliminate this administration and the majority of idiots in this congress. These assholes are dangerous, and there's no other rational way to look at it.

In watching what little accurately presented news there was on yesterdays debacle, I would say that Obama came off very poorly, and that the whole plan of making the Republicans look like shit backfired terribly on them. Obama looked petulant and angry, while the Republicans read the Democrat bill, ripping it to shreds line by line ( and rightfully so)

I agree with Cenk when he says just take the damn vote. What I don't think Cenk understands is that its gonna fail and destroy whatever is left of this failed presidency...

:)

by bobo1 on 02/26/2010 12:37:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]
That wasn't so hard was it. (none / 0)
You actually support the "more" liberal version, than the one put forward by Obama and the "conservative" Dems. Good for you. Common ground is easy to find if you take the politics (my side vs their side) out of the arguement.

You then fall into the same old trap and begin with the us vs them BS. Rational thought my friend. The Dems gave up single payer (at the start) in the hopes of getting Pubs on Board. The Pubs are not fighting for our benefit. They are fighting for their big money friends. They are against single payer and against the public option. (both of which are still better and save us more money).

As far as Obama's failed presidency I have a question. Who's fault is it? The Dems for not forcing their agenda or the Pubs for blocking EVERYTHING. This is why I get angry at Dems. They cut back on the stimulus bill to appease Pubs. The Pubs turn around don't vote for it anyway, crow about voting against it. Then blame Dems because not enough jobs were created and then go home and take credit for the jobs and funding that they voted against.

Notice how publically they are against big corporate bonuses and quitely oppose attempts by Dems to reign those same bonuses in.

They are "publically"  ;agast at Wall Street but are against any regulation to protect the taxpayer and fix the problem.

Look back over the last 30 years at "deregulation" S&Ls in the 80s, Banks early 90s and Wall Street 08. They all followed deregulation. Funny how that gets conviently forgotten by the very people who complain most about waste and fraud in government. Why tax you for it when corporate america can steal it so much better (and the best part. They get to tax you for it later-with massive interest) but you are afraid of those tax and spend Dems. When it comes to stealing your tax money for BS the Dems can't hold a candle to the Pubs.

On almost every issue we can find the same common ground if we can get past our "tribal" tendencies and look at these problems with logic and common sense.

Simple truth is, it isn't the Dem or Pubs pulling the strings in Washington. It is the true corporate elite. They buy the candidates, they pay for the propaganda and get us fighting amongst ourselves over that Facist dog Bush or that Socialist Obama, just so they can fatten their pockets.

by LORD FOUL on 02/27/2010 10:01:33 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Reconciliation 2010 = Nuclear Option 2005 | 42 comments (42 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: