Are all US Congressmen and women just flaming hypocrites?

[Coito ergo sum]

We are hearing a lot lately about the Democrats busting Republican filibuster on the health care debate.

However, look at what the same Democrats said about this kind of thing when the Republicans wanted to do it in 2005. Then, it was a "Constitutional Crisis." Listen to the language here: http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-dems-in-2 ... rs-intent/

Hillary called the right to filibuster a "delicate balance" and against the founders intent. Obama called it a change in thtSenate rules that would change the character of the Senate forever - Obama was concerned of majoritarian absolute power not bein g what the founders intended.

Now, this cuts both ways, to be fair. Now the Republicans are bitching and moaning about how unfair it is that the Democrats now want to do this health care thing with 51 votes....and the Republicans are now up in arms about it.

But, what the fuck?????? Are these people really this fucking hypocritical?

My FSM!!! They will rail against something as a threat to the very foundation of the Republic as we know it! And, then when it suits their purpose they will do the exact same things themselves!

Sickening.

[I'm With Stupid]

Of course they are. It's just BS party politics that puts everyone off voting, and seems to be the inevitable conclusion of a two party system (which itself is the result of FPTP voting).

[Coito ergo sum]

Of course they are. It's just BS party politics that puts everyone off voting, and seems to be the inevitable conclusion of a two party system (which itself is the result of FPTP voting).

Yeah, but - it's so fucking blatant nowadays. I mean, just in-your-face, unapologetic lies and bullshit. It's one thing to be a bit hypocritical here and there, and whitewash/sanitize things here and there, but the video I posted is just insulting.

I mean - the SAME PEOPLE - who now think it's o.k. to bypass Senate rules for their purposes and go for a 51 person vote, were railing against the same thing as if it would spell the end of democracy as we know it in America. It's pathetic, and makes me sick. I feel like they have no respect for the constituency they represent - just say whatever, and it doesn't matter.

We're not even talking arguable points here - or nuance - or something that we could say that it's a different story. This is just "I'm going to say one thing one day, and the exact opposite the next." They are liars to the point of being PROUD of it, it seems. Like when Pelosi chuckled about Obama's promise during the campaign about televising negotiations over health care reform on C-SPAn - she laughed and said, "oh, he promised a lot of things during the campaign," ha ha ha. It's like - oh, of course they're just making shit up.

When I was younger, there were always complaints of politicians lying and stretching the truth too - but it always seemed that they one being accused of stretching the truth had some plausible deniability there - some excuse or some argument that he wasn't really lying. It seems like nowadays they just don't fucking even care. They're lying. They know it. They admit it. They don't give a flying fuck.

That's my rant for the day.

[drl2]

We are hearing a lot lately about the Democrats busting Republican filibuster on the health care debate.

However, look at what the same Democrats said about this kind of thing when the Republicans wanted to do it in 2005. Then, it was a "Constitutional Crisis." Listen to the language here: http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-dems-in-2 ... rs-intent/

Hillary called the right to filibuster a "delicate balance" and against the founders intent. Obama called it a change in thtSenate rules that would change the character of the Senate forever - Obama was concerned of majoritarian absolute power not bein g what the founders intended.

Now, this cuts both ways, to be fair. Now the Republicans are bitching and moaning about how unfair it is that the Democrats now want to do this health care thing with 51 votes....and the Republicans are now up in arms about it.

But, what the fuck?????? Are these people really this fucking hypocritical?

My FSM!!! They will rail against something as a threat to the very foundation of the Republic as we know it! And, then when it suits their purpose they will do the exact same things themselves!

Sickening.

I'm certainly not naive enough to think either side of the political aisle isn't guilty of hypocricy more often than not, but:

Very few people are seriously talking about removing the filibuster, but the right wing web sites are spreading this nonsense because because it fits in with their "Obama as tyrannosocialnazicommumuslimgrandmakillerist" scare tactics. What's been proposed is using the reconciliation process, which is limited to budgetary items only, to try to pass elements of health care reform by simple majority. Republicans used this a number of times during the Bush years, including the passage of the tax cuts which were at least in part directly responsible for the massive deficits which have suddenly become important.

The "nuclear option" - passage of a bill to change congressional procedure to eliminate the filibuster - was proposed by the Republicans during the Bush admin because the Dems filibustered (or used the threat of a filibuster to keep a bill from even reaching a vote) 50-some times during those years. Those same republicans more than doubled the Dems' 8-year filibuster count in the first year of Obama's administration. The nuclear option has been mentioned a lot lately, and maybe somebody will try to introduce such a bill, but there's no chance it'll pass and it hasn't been pushed by the president at all.

[blackarmada]

Look at it this way, if they were not capable of lying to others or to themselves very well they wouldn't have been able to be in Congress in the first place.

Politicians lie to protect their own interests, why would that be a surprise?

[Randydeluxe]

But... but... hypocrisy is the act of claiming a belief while demonstrating behavior opposed to that belief.

In both the previous and the current dustup about the filibuster, both parties of elected leaders want to win for their side. And both parties have demonstrated behavior that suggests they would like to use the filibuster rule in order to win.

Hypocrisy would be claim the belief that the filibuster should never be used, then immediately filibuster a vote. Hypocrisy would be to say that the filibuster simply must be protected, while voting to have it struck down.

It's not hypocritical to change your mind over a period of six years, and then make a different claim on belief than you did previously.

Right?

[NineOneFour]

We are hearing a lot lately about the Democrats busting Republican filibuster on the health care debate.

However, look at what the same Democrats said about this kind of thing when the Republicans wanted to do it in 2005. Then, it was a "Constitutional Crisis." Listen to the language here: http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-dems-in-2 ... rs-intent/

Hillary called the right to filibuster a "delicate balance" and against the founders intent. Obama called it a change in thtSenate rules that would change the character of the Senate forever - Obama was concerned of majoritarian absolute power not bein g what the founders intended.

Now, this cuts both ways, to be fair. Now the Republicans are bitching and moaning about how unfair it is that the Democrats now want to do this health care thing with 51 votes....and the Republicans are now up in arms about it.

But, what the fuck?????? Are these people really this fucking hypocritical?

My FSM!!! They will rail against something as a threat to the very foundation of the Republic as we know it! And, then when it suits their purpose they will do the exact same things themselves!

Sickening.

Yes they do and yes it is.

I'd caution anyone using breitbart.com as a source though. Andrew Breitbart has been found to be consorting with white supremacists and the like. It's not a reputable site.

[eXcommunicate]

We are hearing a lot lately about the Democrats busting Republican filibuster on the health care debate.

However, look at what the same Democrats said about this kind of thing when the Republicans wanted to do it in 2005. Then, it was a "Constitutional Crisis." Listen to the language here: http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-dems-in-2 ... rs-intent/

Hillary called the right to filibuster a "delicate balance" and against the founders intent. Obama called it a change in thtSenate rules that would change the character of the Senate forever - Obama was concerned of majoritarian absolute power not bein g what the founders intended.

Now, this cuts both ways, to be fair. Now the Republicans are bitching and moaning about how unfair it is that the Democrats now want to do this health care thing with 51 votes....and the Republicans are now up in arms about it.

But, what the fuck?????? Are these people really this fucking hypocritical?

My FSM!!! They will rail against something as a threat to the very foundation of the Republic as we know it! And, then when it suits their purpose they will do the exact same things themselves!

Sickening.

If you look back at all the bills passed through reconciliation you will find the majority were done by the Republicans. That doesn't absolve Democrats of hypocrisy, but it is very telling for the Republicans to be crying about this, especially when the CBO projects the bill will lower the deficit (by a paltry $100B over 10 years). The Republicans used it on or threatened to use it on things like tax cuts that added hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit. Ain't nobody clean in this, but let's get real now.

I know it isn't popular in some circles to say, but the filibuster really needs a good nerf or abolished altogether. There are already checks and balances in the system to prevent particularly egregious bills from being passed into law without the goddamn filibuster. And don't give me claptrap about "tyranny of the majority," when the Founders could have put such a rule into The Constitution if it was really such a concern, but they didn't. Instead of the rule of the majority, we now have tyranny of the minority.

[Babel]

It helps that most voters have an attention span of a demented goldfish.
Makes things easier on them.

(oh and don't believe for a second it's only AMERICAN politicians that are like that. The emphasis should be on POLITICIANS here.)

[Coito ergo sum]

But... but... hypocrisy is the act of claiming a belief while demonstrating behavior opposed to that belief.

In both the previous and the current dustup about the filibuster, both parties of elected leaders want to win for their side. And both parties have demonstrated behavior that suggests they would like to use the filibuster rule in order to win.

Hypocrisy would be claim the belief that the filibuster should never be used, then immediately filibuster a vote. Hypocrisy would be to say that the filibuster simply must be protected, while voting to have it struck down.

It's not hypocritical to change your mind over a period of six years, and then make a different claim on belief than you did previously.

Right?

We're not talking about a change of mind here.

Did you actually listen to the link I posted?

We have Clinton, Biden, Obama, Reid and others saying that the Republicans wanting to use a "nuclear option" to get laws passed by a majority rather than supermajority vote was "contrary to what the founders intended," un-American, possibly unconstitutional, and dangerous to the very core of our national being - words to that effect and more. However, now, their suggestion of using the same option now, not in regards to getting judge's appointed and things like that, but to restructure 1/7 of the US economy, is apparently just fine in their eyes. That is hypocritical.

[Coito ergo sum]

We are hearing a lot lately about the Democrats busting Republican filibuster on the health care debate.

However, look at what the same Democrats said about this kind of thing when the Republicans wanted to do it in 2005. Then, it was a "Constitutional Crisis." Listen to the language here: http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-dems-in-2 ... rs-intent/

Hillary called the right to filibuster a "delicate balance" and against the founders intent. Obama called it a change in thtSenate rules that would change the character of the Senate forever - Obama was concerned of majoritarian absolute power not bein g what the founders intended.

Now, this cuts both ways, to be fair. Now the Republicans are bitching and moaning about how unfair it is that the Democrats now want to do this health care thing with 51 votes....and the Republicans are now up in arms about it.

But, what the fuck?????? Are these people really this fucking hypocritical?

My FSM!!! They will rail against something as a threat to the very foundation of the Republic as we know it! And, then when it suits their purpose they will do the exact same things themselves!

Sickening.

Yes they do and yes it is.

I'd caution anyone using breitbart.com as a source though. Andrew Breitbart has been found to be consorting with white supremacists and the like. It's not a reputable site.

Breitbart's reputation has nothing to do with it. The video I posted is of Biden, Clinton, Reid, Obama and others in their own words - the actual footage. Nobody is suggesting it's been doctored or made up.

[Coito ergo sum]

We are hearing a lot lately about the Democrats busting Republican filibuster on the health care debate.

However, look at what the same Democrats said about this kind of thing when the Republicans wanted to do it in 2005. Then, it was a "Constitutional Crisis." Listen to the language here: http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-dems-in-2 ... rs-intent/

Hillary called the right to filibuster a "delicate balance" and against the founders intent. Obama called it a change in thtSenate rules that would change the character of the Senate forever - Obama was concerned of majoritarian absolute power not bein g what the founders intended.

Now, this cuts both ways, to be fair. Now the Republicans are bitching and moaning about how unfair it is that the Democrats now want to do this health care thing with 51 votes....and the Republicans are now up in arms about it.

But, what the fuck?????? Are these people really this fucking hypocritical?

My FSM!!! They will rail against something as a threat to the very foundation of the Republic as we know it! And, then when it suits their purpose they will do the exact same things themselves!

Sickening.

If you look back at all the bills passed through reconciliation you will find the majority were done by the Republicans. That doesn't absolve Democrats of hypocrisy, but it is very telling for the Republicans to be crying about this, especially when the CBO projects the bill will lower the deficit (by a paltry $100B over 10 years). The Republicans used it on or threatened to use it on things like tax cuts that added hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit. Ain't nobody clean in this, but let's get real now.

Which is why I did not limit my allegation of hypocrisy to Democrats. The video in this case was of Democrats making wild cllaims that the nuclear option would destroy the very fabric of our government, and now those same Democrats think it's fine. However, by the same token, the nuclear option was considered fine by many of the same Republicans who now rail against it.

It's sickening all around.

I know it isn't popular in some circles to say, but the filibuster really needs a good nerf or abolished altogether. There are already checks and balances in the system to prevent particularly egregious bills from being passed into law without the goddamn filibuster. And don't give me claptrap about "tyranny of the majority," when the Founders could have put such a rule into The Constitution if it was really such a concern, but they didn't. Instead of the rule of the majority, we now have tyranny of the minority.

Obama, Clinton, Reid, Pelosi and Biden all cared quite a lot about the tyranny of the majority three years ago. Now, of course, not so much...

I don't disagree with you, necessarily. What I would say, however, is that we return the filibuster to what it was previously - you know, the "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" kind of filibuster where the Senator actually has to keep the the floor - literally - and keep talking. Senate Rule 22 permits filibusters in which actual continuous floor speeches are not required. We should allow the filibuster, but require the actual and continuous floor speeches. With today's technology - CSPAN - that couldn't last too long as a practical matter, because if the people see some asshole there reading the phone book or something instead of substantively addressing the bill at issue, the people will go nuts.

In the modern filibuster, the senators trying to block a vote do not have to hold the floor and continue to speak as long as there is a quorum. In the past, when one senator became exhausted, another would need to take over to continue the filibuster. Ultimately, the filibuster could be exhausted by a majority who would even sleep in cots outside the Senate Chamber to exhaust the filibusterers. Today, the minority just advises the majority leader that the filibuster is on. All debate on the bill is stopped until either cloture is voted by three-fifths (now 60 votes) of the Senate. Some modern Senate critics have called for a return to the old dramatic endurance contest but that would inconvenience all senators who would have to stay in session 24/7 until the filibuster is broken.

So, basically, the Senators, who are paid $174,000 a year, get free food and grooming/haircuts, get free medical care and medicine, and get free airplane transportation and many other perks, don't want to get put in a position where their jobs might suck for a while due to a real filibuster. I say, fuck them. Keep the filibuster, but make them really filibuster. The current "notice of filibuster" process is a joke.

[drl2]

We have Clinton, Biden, Obama, Reid and others saying that the Republicans wanting to use a "nuclear option" to get laws passed by a majority rather than supermajority vote was "contrary to what the founders intended," un-American, possibly unconstitutional, and dangerous to the very core of our national being - words to that effect and more. However, now, their suggestion of using the same option now, not in regards to getting judge's appointed and things like that, but to restructure 1/7 of the US economy, is apparently just fine in their eyes. That is hypocritical.

Again, the "nuclear option" is a removal of the ability to filibuster and is NOT what they're threatening to use here. Reconciliation is a long-standing process by which they can pass budgetary items without a supermajority (which is rare for either party to have). It's limited in scope and though it does bypass the filibuster, it does not eliminate it. Breitbart is deliberately conflating the two and selectively editing video to hide this fact.

[trubble76]

Are all US Congressmen and women just flaming hypocrites?

I read this as "Are all US Congressmen, and women, just flaming hypocrites"

I was going to admonish you by pointing out that out of 3bn women, there has to be some non-hypocrites

j/k folks, i love women, i mean i love to love women, i mean can i love any women?

[Coito ergo sum]

We have Clinton, Biden, Obama, Reid and others saying that the Republicans wanting to use a "nuclear option" to get laws passed by a majority rather than supermajority vote was "contrary to what the founders intended," un-American, possibly unconstitutional, and dangerous to the very core of our national being - words to that effect and more. However, now, their suggestion of using the same option now, not in regards to getting judge's appointed and things like that, but to restructure 1/7 of the US economy, is apparently just fine in their eyes. That is hypocritical.

Again, the "nuclear option" is a removal of the ability to filibuster and is NOT what they're threatening to use here. Reconciliation is a long-standing process by which they can pass budgetary items without a supermajority (which is rare for either party to have). It's limited in scope and though it does bypass the filibuster, it does not eliminate it. Breitbart is deliberately conflating the two and selectively editing video to hide this fact.

Actually, reconciliation is not really a "long standing process." It was first used solely for budget measures and solely budget measures that would REDUCE the deficit. After 1996 (a mere 14 years ago) the usage was expanded to any budgetary measure. Overhauling the health care system is not a budgetary measure.

The nuclear option would invalidate or eliminate the filibuster altogether. he 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. I.e. - it's actually been used before.

The nuclear option was brought to prominence in 2005 when then-Majority Leader Bill Frist threatened its use to end Democratic-led filibusters of judicial nominees submitted by President George W. Bush. In response to this threat, Democrats threatened to shut down the Senate and prevent consideration of all routine and legislative Senate business. That's when all the democrats in the video went on their tirades about how the filibuster is a core principle of our system and that it would be an awful thing to get around it. The ultimate confrontation was prevented by the Gang of 14, a group of seven Democratic and seven Republican Senators, all of whom agreed to oppose the nuclear option and oppose filibusters of judicial nominees, except in extraordinary circumstances.

The issue today is about the same, except the Democrats are threatening to use the reconciliation process to end a filibuster rather than the nuclear option. Both are just ways around the filibuster rule. Neither eliminates the filibuster altogether.