It's Harry Reid at it, again. Changing the rules...

[Guest 6.8 AR]

[url="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84195.html"]http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84195.html[/url]

If you can't win the way the rules are set, change 'em. This could cause problems.
Kind of like in Atlas Shrugged where Congress allowed one man to regulate society.
Wesley Mouch is about to happen.

[RobertNashville]

I think it's much ado about nothing as there simply aren't enough senators or congressmen of either party with the background to hold anyone accountable for anything. At the end of the day the the legislature, lead by the Republicans, will cave which is about the only thing they do consistently.

[Smith]

I don't have a problem with an actual filibuster. That should have been done when the Republicans had the opportunity and the Dems cried foul. As far as changing the vote count, that is the bigger issue.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353946198' post='850799']
I think it's much ado about nothing as there simply aren't enough senators or congressmen of either party with the background to hold anyone accountable for anything. At the end of the day the the legislature, lead by the Republicans, will cave which is about the only thing they do consistently.
[/quote]
Robert, when a majority can change the rules to limit the use of something like the filibuster to their liking, what
is the use of that body? Funding bills(?) take 51 votes. All other take that plus the possibility of the filibuster, the
act of filibuster requires a 60 vote majority to allow minority representation in that body for the prevention of tyranny.
In other words, to block a piece of bad legislation.

When you change long standing rules to suit one party of the moment, it is called tyranny and will allow all kinds of
mischief in the senate. The house only requires a simple majority for passage of any legislation. The senate has a
higher threshold to prevent it.

I think it's a big deal.

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='6.8 AR' timestamp='1353954013' post='850854']
Robert, when a majority can change the rules to limit the use of something like the filibuster to their liking, what
is the use of that body? Funding bills(?) take 51 votes. All other take that plus the possibility of the filibuster, the
act of filibuster requires a 60 vote majority to allow minority representation in that body for the prevention of tyranny.
In other words, to block a piece of bad legislation.

When you change long standing rules to suit one party of the moment, it is called tyranny and will allow all kinds of
mischief in the senate. The house only requires a simple majority for passage of any legislation. The senate has a
higher threshold to prevent it.

I think it's a big deal.
[/quote]I don't really disagree...my point is that the politicians in this Senate and House are too weak and too self-absorbed with their own greatness and furthering their political careers that the ultimate outcome will not change.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Obviously they are that. That's what our job is to be:replacing them.