Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

Democrats Go Nuclear...

horselipshorselips Senior MemberPosts: 3,628 Senior Member
...and destroy 200 years of Senatorial tradition. If this doesn't scare you to death, you're not paying attention. Expect the entire Federal judiciary to be packed with radical leftists. Expect their agenda to take precedence over the Constitution. Especially the Bill of Rights. If you believe our country will survive, all this will pass, and a future patriotic president will be able to reverse it all, you're delusional.

If you don't think it matters who you vote for, think again. If you think you can rationalize not voting for Republicans for any reason whatsoever, today is proof positive you're kidding yourself. Every time you do, a Democrat smiles, and wins. But that's OK, you're happy in denial. You're happy in your self-important smugness. Self-righteousness is a powerful, soothing emotion.

As long as you're ready to live as a subject in the progressives' brave new world, unarmed and no longer a free citizen, fine. Just don't whine when the unthinkable finally happens - when what can't happen here happens here. It won't matter who you blame for the coming debacle - country-club Republicans, RINOs, some elegant conspiracy theory, whatever - it won't matter. The Democrats will thank YOU. Personally. For not voting for the only candidates who could have defeated them. They won't care about your reasons, they'll just be glad you had them, whatever they were. By the way, they'll also be thanking you for your gun collection. No kidding.

Moderate Republicans like Romney and Christie are indeed out of step with my personal ideology. But they're not totalitarians. As Senator Reid proved today, Democrats are totalitarians. No matter what you think of whomever emerges from the GOP primaries to run against the Democrats, know this - they won't be totalitarians. If you can't see a real, genuine, legitimate lesser of 2 evils, between a candidate who is a totalitarian and one who is not, you're being deliberately blind. If the GOP doesn't win the Senate in 2014...I don't even want to think about it.
«1

Replies

  • BillyDBillyD Member Posts: 191 Member
    I am with CPJ on this one. I will not vote for a pile of crap just because the alternative is a bigger pile of crap. The left does not have a monopoly on destroying this country. I will take a moderate republican any day. I am sick of the wing-nuts on both sides, I have just as little use for the tea party as for the democrats.
  • shotgunshooter3shotgunshooter3 Senior Member Posts: 5,733 Senior Member
    When the GOP puts out a candidate that represents my values, I'll vote for him/her/it. Buying into the lie of "the lesser of two evils" is buying into a short term fix for a problem that will take years of dedication and support to fix. I'm holding out for long term effects.
    - I am a rifleman with a poorly chosen screen name. -
    "Slow is smooth, smooth is fast, and speed is the economy of motion" - Scott Jedlinski
  • terminator012terminator012 Senior Member Posts: 3,929 Senior Member
    So we just set back and watch this country go to crap. Sounds like a plan.
  • Pelagic KayakerPelagic Kayaker Banned Posts: 1,503 Senior Member
    So we just set back and watch this country go to crap. Sounds like a plan.

    Amazing how many are waving the white flag of surrender already. Obama got elected for precisely that same reason. Many chose to stay home and put their tail between their legs. As a result we came a hairs breadth of losing our 2A rights this year. People who don't vote don't deserve freedom ...PERIOD END OF DISCUSSION. I cringe at the idea of serving 8 years in the military just so some dickwads can sit out an election. Imagine if the Founders cowered in fear, declared defeat and stayed home on 07/04/1776?

    ...the sig below says it all.
  • Pelagic KayakerPelagic Kayaker Banned Posts: 1,503 Senior Member
    When the GOP puts out a candidate that represents my values, I'll vote for him/her/it.

    Good luck with that. Americans have been waiting for that 'perfect' candidate for well over 200 years now.
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 16,914 Senior Member
    I don't need the "perfect candidate", I just refuse to vote for a RINO....lets try for someone who actually reflects our basic values....I didn't vote for Romney because he signed an AWB as governor of Massachusetts, A mere glance at New Jersey's gun laws tells me I will never cast a vote for Christie....
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • coolgunguycoolgunguy Senior Member Posts: 6,610 Senior Member
    Sooner or later, John Q. is going to hit 'that' point. Sadly, this procedural change by the Senate probably won't draw that much attention...yet. For most folks, this registers as 'no biggie'. Federal Bench appointments are for life, so that makes this the gift that will keep on giving and giving and giving...
    "Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
    George Carlin
  • QuinianQuinian Senior Member Posts: 707 Senior Member
    Sorry buddy but left/right titles are meaningless. I'll vote based on the candidates background. I don't like Obama because of his background, and I don't like Romney for the same. IMO Dem/repub are two sides of the same coin

    As to the nuclear option, yeah that rubbed me the wrong way for sure and looks like one more step to a dictatorship to me.
  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,995 Senior Member
    The DEMS will scream UNFAIR like raped apes when the shoe gets on the other foot and they lose their majority in the Senate and they will eventually. What goes around comes around.

    Still, I wonder why now, I've heard much yakking in the past about it, but what all of a sudden drove them to them this extreme? Is their boy in so much Do Do they figure it's their last chance to get his selectees in while they can??????
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 6,244 Senior Member
    It's just a senate rule. Not law. And that pendulum swings both ways.
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    Yeah, but Republicans go new-q-lar.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • shootbrownelkshootbrownelk Senior Member Posts: 2,035 Senior Member
    horselips wrote: »
    ...and destroy 200 years of Senatorial tradition. If this doesn't scare you to death, you're not paying attention. Expect the entire Federal judiciary to be packed with radical leftists. Expect their agenda to take precedence over the Constitution. Especially the Bill of Rights. If you believe our country will survive, all this will pass, and a future patriotic president will be able to reverse it all, you're delusional.

    If you don't think it matters who you vote for, think again. If you think you can rationalize not voting for Republicans for any reason whatsoever, today is proof positive you're kidding yourself. Every time you do, a Democrat smiles, and wins. But that's OK, you're happy in denial. You're happy in your self-important smugness. Self-righteousness is a powerful, soothing emotion.

    As long as you're ready to live as a subject in the progressives' brave new world, unarmed and no longer a free citizen, fine. Just don't whine when the unthinkable finally happens - when what can't happen here happens here. It won't matter who you blame for the coming debacle - country-club Republicans, RINOs, some elegant conspiracy theory, whatever - it won't matter. The Democrats will thank YOU. Personally. For not voting for the only candidates who could have defeated them. They won't care about your reasons, they'll just be glad you had them, whatever they were. By the way, they'll also be thanking you for your gun collection. No kidding.

    Moderate Republicans like Romney and Christie are indeed out of step with my personal ideology. But they're not totalitarians. As Senator Reid proved today, Democrats are totalitarians. No matter what you think of whomever emerges from the GOP primaries to run against the Democrats, know this - they won't be totalitarians. If you can't see a real, genuine, legitimate lesser of 2 evils, between a candidate who is a totalitarian and one who is not, you're being deliberately blind. If the GOP doesn't win the Senate in 2014...I don't even want to think about it.

    Agreed, it's mostly a "hold your nose and pull the lever" situation. ANY republican is a better choice than a gun grabbing Democrat. If the Democrats (Hillary probably) win, all us gun lovers lose.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,395 Senior Member
    Big Chief wrote: »
    Still, I wonder why now, I've heard much yakking in the past about it, but what all of a sudden drove them to them this extreme? Is their boy in so much Do Do they figure it's their last chance to get his selectees in while they can??????

    From what I read in the news, it's because of the D.C. Federal judgeships that are open, and the Republicans have been blocking those nominations. All the lawsuits will have to go through this D.C. Court. With judges beholden to Obama and with the same political leanings, NO lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act would be allowed to move forward. This would also be applicable for any lawsuits against the Obama administration and any of his minions.

    Does this clear things up a bit?
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,995 Senior Member
    Yes, thank you it does clarify some things.

    You mean they (Congress) may have an ulterior motive and might not be acting in the American peoples best interest, I'm shocked!

    BTW, when will the next Supreme Court nominee be put up, they are speculating about one or two needing to be filled after the nest prez is elected?????
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,395 Senior Member
    BC, best I can tell is that a couple of SCOTUS judges are hanging on waiting for a Repub. president to be sitting before they retire. If a Republican manages to get elected in 2016, and none of the justices die or get really sick between now and then, then I expect a couple to stand down. If a Dem wins in 2016 it may get really interesting (read bad as in lock 'n' load time) because a couple of activist judges slammed into the SCOTUS could put the Constitution at high risk. The danged lock 'n' load clock is already way too close to midnight as it is now without more shenanigans from D.C.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 6,244 Senior Member
    But this senate rule change excluded Supreme Court nominees. Harry Reid just wanted to put the tip in....
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,395 Senior Member
    This will, in effect, make the Senate the same as the House of Representatives in that it now puts votes on a simple majority standing instead of important stuff needing a super majority of 60 votes. Anybody thinks that is a good idea needs to put down the crack pipe. This could have a lot of unintended consequences down the road, and VERY soon.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,395 Senior Member
    It ONLY applies to nominees for federal offices, not supreme court and not legislation. The filibuster is a senate rule that can be changed at a minimum of at the start of every session by a simple majority.

    All the rest of the post is fluff. The part I bolded proves my point. The Democrats now hold a majority in the Senate. Once the power surge hits them they will use that power to stop all filibusters, and, in effect, rule the Senate by fiat. Wake up and smell the coffee.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    You mean like how the Republicans rule the house?

    ZING!
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,395 Senior Member
    You mean like how the Republicans rule the house?

    Like a poor marksman, you keep missing the target. The House and Senate are separate bodies with quite a few separate duties. In other words, they are not the same. The House doesn't do the 'Advise and Consent' on judges, cabinet appointments, etc.; this is the responsibility of the Senate. Without the ability to filibuster, the minority party in the Senate will be without any power to cut off really bad things the majority could do. If you want a bunch of activist Federal judges in the D.C. District and elsewhere that wipe their anuses on the Constitution, then you will be getting them shortly.

    U.S. Constitution Article 1 Section 1
    "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."

    The House controls the purse strings, in theory.

    If you are unable to see the undesirable effect of a Senate ruled by one party with no checks and balances from the minority party, then you do not understand at all.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • tv_racin_fantv_racin_fan Senior Member Posts: 660 Senior Member
    It ONLY applies to nominees for federal offices, not supreme court and not legislation. The filibuster is a senate rule that can be changed at a minimum of at the start of every session by a simple majority.

    Here's a simple graphic on the history of the filibuster and it's unprecedented use in the past few years:

    aviary%20(1).jpg?uuid=GzpEUJ7LEeG8pnJ7y9v4Zg

    When put in place the filibuster was intended to be a tool of last resort, not a default requirement for everything handled by the senate to require 60 votes. My take on it is leave it in place, but if someone really wants to use it they have to go back to the old school style of actually standing up there and talking to delay things. It needs to go back to being only used for major situations, not trying to block every single nomination the president makes!

    Why does the chart leave out the earlier history of the filibuster? Say from 1837 to 1917? I believe 1837 is the date of the first filibuster tho as I understand it it became possible in 1806 or so..
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,395 Senior Member
    Not really sure which of us is the one exhibiting poor marksmanship. The filibuster didn't exist for a large portion of the history of the Senate. It is not in the constitution. The majority in the senate has the power to change the rules. That IS in the constitution. If the Republicans want to be the ones with the power to appoint judges, maybe they should start nominating individuals who can win statewide elections. Right now it seems like they're only capable of winning highly gerrymandered house districts.

    I reject YOUR revisionist history and substitute the TRUTH.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate
    In 1789, the first U.S. Senate adopted rules allowing the Senate "to move the previous question", ending debate and proceeding to a vote. Aaron Burr argued that the motion regarding the previous question was redundant, had only been exercised once in the preceding four years, and should be eliminated.[2] In 1806, the Senate agreed, recodifying its rules, and thus the potential for a filibuster sprang into being.[2] Because the Senate created no alternative mechanism for terminating debate, the filibuster became an option for delay and blocking of floor votes.

    The filibuster remained a solely theoretical option until the late 1830s. The first Senate filibuster occurred in 1837.[3] In 1841, a defining moment came during debate on a bill to charter the Second Bank of the United States. Senator Henry Clay tried to end debate via majority vote. Senator William R. King threatened a filibuster, saying that Clay "may make his arrangements at his boarding house for the winter". Other senators sided with King, and Clay backed down.[2]

    Modern scholars point out that in practice, narrow Senate majorities would be able to enact legislation, by changing the rules, but only on the 1st day of the session in January or March.[4] This could be done if the minority used it to prevent, instead of merely to delay, votes on measures supported by a bare majority.[4]

    http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm



    Filibuster and Cloture

    19th Century Filibuster



    Using the filibuster to delay or block legislative action has a long history. The term filibuster -- from a Dutch word meaning "pirate" -- became popular in the 1850s, when it was applied to efforts to hold the Senate floor in order to prevent a vote on a bill.

    In the early years of Congress, representatives as well as senators could filibuster. As the House of Representatives grew in numbers, however, revisions to the House rules limited debate. In the smaller Senate, unlimited debate continued on the grounds that any senator should have the right to speak as long as necessary on any issue.

    In 1841, when the Democratic minority hoped to block a bank bill promoted by Kentucky Senator Henry Clay, he threatened to change Senate rules to allow the majority to close debate. Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton rebuked Clay for trying to stifle the Senate's right to unlimited debate.

    Three quarters of a century later, in 1917, senators adopted a rule (Rule 22), at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson, that allowed the Senate to end a debate with a two-thirds majority vote, a device known as "cloture." The new Senate rule was first put to the test in 1919, when the Senate invoked cloture to end a filibuster against the Treaty of Versailles. Even with the new cloture rule, filibusters remained an effective means to block legislation, since a two-thirds vote is difficult to obtain. Over the next five decades, the Senate occasionally tried to invoke cloture, but usually failed to gain the necessary two-thirds vote. Filibusters were particularly useful to Southern senators who sought to block civil rights legislation, including anti-lynching legislation, until cloture was invoked after a 60 day filibuster against the Civil Right Act of 1964. In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds to three-fifths, or 60 of the current one hundred senators.

    Many Americans are familiar with the filibuster conducted by Jimmy Stewart, playing Senator Jefferson Smith in Frank Capra's film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, but there have been some famous filibusters in the real-life Senate as well. During the 1930s, Senator Huey P. Long effectively used the filibuster against bills that he thought favored the rich over the poor. The Louisiana senator frustrated his colleagues while entertaining spectators with his recitations of Shakespeare and his reading of recipes for "pot-likkers." Long once held the Senate floor for 15 hours. The record for the longest individual speech goes to South Carolina's J. Strom Thurmond who filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957.


    So tell me again how the filibuster didn't exist for a large portion of the history of the Senate.
    Here's another clue. The filibuster isn't in the Constitution because the Senate makes their own rules for conducting business within agreed upon guidelines. Roberts Rules of Order, for one.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • horselipshorselips Senior Member Posts: 3,628 Senior Member
    The spike in filibusters during the last few years is because we've never before had a true crypto-fascist neo-Bolshevik cosmopolite for a President. The filibuster is not just a political device any more, now it's self-defense for the American way against an existential threat to western civilization.
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 6,244 Senior Member
    horselips wrote: »
    The filibuster is not just a political device any more, now it's self-defense for the American way against an existential threat to western civilization.

    What is it, then, when liberals use it?
  • horselipshorselips Senior Member Posts: 3,628 Senior Member
    Buffco wrote: »
    What is it, then, when liberals use it?

    Usually an existential threat to western civilization. Liberals use it to block the appointment of patriots to U.N. ambassadorships, and to prevent the confirmation of judges who are guided in their rulings by original intent and strict constructionism.
  • coolgunguycoolgunguy Senior Member Posts: 6,610 Senior Member
    horselips wrote: »
    Usually an existential threat to western civilization. Liberals use it to block the appointment of patriots to U.N. ambassadorships, and to prevent the confirmation of judges who are guided in their rulings by original intent and strict constructionism.


    Look, I'm with you that this change is a bad thing that no good will come of...but do you really believe that Democrat/Liberal = Bad and Republican/Conservative = good? That only Repubs and conservatives can be patriots? That the only judge that can follow the Constitution judges from the right? Seriously?!?
    "Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
    George Carlin
  • horselipshorselips Senior Member Posts: 3,628 Senior Member
    coolgunguy wrote: »
    Look, I'm with you that this change is a bad thing that no good will come of...but do you really believe that Democrat/Liberal = Bad and Republican/Conservative = good? That only Repubs and conservatives can be patriots? That the only judge that can follow the Constitution judges from the right? Seriously?!?

    YES. The Democratic Party of JFK (ask not what your country can do for you...etc.) is long gone. And patriotic Democrats are also few and very far between. Talk to a bunch of them, see for yourself. Listen to liberal talk radio. Watch liberal television.

    NO. The Republican Party of Ronald Reagan has lost its way, the Tea Party movement is an attempt by the grass roots to recover the values the country-clubbers lost during the Bush presidency. There are judges supposedly selected for their conservatism who sometimes go native and end up off the reservation. Witness John Roberts and his deeply flawed ruling on Obamacare.

    MAYBE. In a country and a world gone nuts, forget finding ideological purity, or even consistent sanity in a candidate from either party. But you can sure find candidates traveling the right road and generally going in the right direction - albeit in the slow lane. It's all about trends and directions. Which party is more LIKELY to represent the majority of your values? That's the party platform and nominees to support. We learned during the Aurora/Sandy Hook madness that Congressmen and Senators with A+ ratings from the NRA and other gun rights groups, supposedly vertebrates all, were among the first to cave and turn against the 2nd Amendment, and by the time the NRA and GOA worked them over, several liberal Senators voted with us.

    OBSERVATION. You can no longer rely on any office holder's past record. Voters themselves are no more reliable than the candidates they vote for and against. The deluded voters of Colorado elected 2 neo-Bolsheviks one day, and recalled them the next. After the next mass-shooting massacre, don't be surprised if Representative Paul Ryan deserts us again, trying to close the mythical gun show loophole, and Governor Chris Christie sticks a wet finger into the political winds and ends up supporting us. There are no absolutes in politics - just trends and directions.
  • Jack BurtonJack Burton Member Posts: 379 Member
    coolgunguy wrote: »
    That only Repubs and conservatives can be patriots?

    If I may, horselips was referring to a patriotic UN ambassador (John Bolton who was filibustered by Dems before being recess appointed) as one who genuinely put US interests ahead of the "Global Test" as our current Sec of State once infamously said.
    Came for the fishing, stayed for the guns.
  • coolgunguycoolgunguy Senior Member Posts: 6,610 Senior Member
    horselips wrote: »
    MAYBE. In a country and a world gone nuts, forget finding ideological purity, or even consistent sanity in a candidate from either party. But you can sure find candidates traveling the right road and generally going in the right direction - albeit in the slow lane. It's all about trends and directions. Which party is more LIKELY to represent the majority of your values? That's the party platform and nominees to support.

    Wait...so then the Tea Party is okay? I thought it was the Republican party we had to vote for lest we vote for Hillary by default. I'm confused...:uhm:
    If I may, horselips was referring to a patriotic UN ambassador (John Bolton who was filibustered by Dems before being recess appointed) as one who genuinely put US interests ahead of the "Global Test" as our current Sec of State once infamously said.

    See, that's the problem. One fella figures 'this' as good for the country and the next knows that the first fella is either an idiot, evil genius or some convoluted concoction of the two. It is possible (even likely) that both the 'Right-winged Bible thumpers' AND the 'Neo-Bolsheviks' BOTH think they are doing the correct, Patriotic thing. Now, I applauded Bolton's stand, as (I'm sure) did some on the left. Others did not, and not all of them were Anarchists or Bolsheviks.
    "Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
    George Carlin
  • Jack BurtonJack Burton Member Posts: 379 Member
    coolgunguy wrote: »
    See, that's the problem. One fella figures 'this' as good for the country and the next knows that the first fella is either an idiot, evil genius or some convoluted concoction of the two. It is possible (even likely) that both the 'Right-winged Bible thumpers' AND the 'Neo-Bolsheviks' BOTH think they are doing the correct, Patriotic thing. Now, I applauded Bolton's stand, as (I'm sure) did some on the left. Others did not, and not all of them were Anarchists or Bolsheviks.
    I'm talking of the United Nations where WRONG is 100% assured. We either have an ambassador who plays the diplo-dink global community feel-good BS, as Peace Keepers do anything but keep the peace while making awesome unarmed observers of genocide after genocide, while the US and Israel are condemned for tsunami's and drowning polar bears, or we can have an ambassador who'll be blunt and say what needs to be said, and none of it from the bible thumped or un-thumped.
    Came for the fishing, stayed for the guns.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement