Jump to content

Featured Replies

anyway :roll::roll:

  • Replies 21.5k
  • Views 593.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most Popular Posts

  • VanHammersly
    VanHammersly

  • While I disagree with Biden trying to save these idiots from themselves, it just proves what a wonderful human being he is. IMO we should encourage Trumpbots to all give each other Covid so they die o

Posted Images

9 minutes ago, NVeagle said:

Mostly peaceful people with no guns didn't have to show them on an afternoon when they security was lax..... otherwise except for that one afternoon, you do now.

Most of the people just wanted to peacefully reject a democratic election.  Others may or may not have engaged in some light treason. But again, it was mostly just a peaceful rejection of democracy, and we shouldn't let a few bad eggs distract us from that. 

13 minutes ago, NVeagle said:

Mostly peaceful people with no guns didn't have to show them on an afternoon when they security was lax..... otherwise except for that one afternoon, you do now.

You would have been better off posting one of your 60% off memes than that drivel.

Country is in shambles when we had two 70+ year old dudes run for President. Of course the stress has got to 10/10 all day and no old geezer can honestly manage that 365 for four years. 

But the people behind Biden aren't Stephen Miller so it's a win for me. 

12 minutes ago, DaEagles4Life said:

But the people behind Biden aren't Stephen Miller so it's a win for me. 

 

E764EC8C-98AD-429A-9251-8946B0ADD412.jpeg

2 hours ago, Talkingbirds said:

That plus he ripped the republicans a new one.

That was my favorite part.

perfect press conference!

1 hour ago, NVeagle said:

For wanting people who vote to show an valid ID......just like you have to do to get into a DNC conference.

 

 

For making it illegal to bring people waiting in line a bottle of water

2 hours ago, Gannan said:

For making it illegal to bring people waiting in line a bottle of water

Only proposed in GA.  Just open up more voting places and the lines will be short.

Plus you really want them to give out water while in line:

s-l400.jpg

6 hours ago, vikas83 said:

How exactly is this different than in person learning for the overwhelming majority of students?

As someone who’s target demographic is women in the 22-32 range, I’ve talked to a lot of teachers. 
 

More or less what is happening with the kids online is that they don’t have the full six hours a day in class. Things are more sporadic and broken up. Also in school they are provided with a bit of structure and discipline throughout the day, whereas when they are at home they have a lot of distractions. Parents these days are trash, so the kids aren’t getting held to standards at home. They aren’t focusing. And they aren’t completing assignments. 

5 hours ago, NVeagle said:

Mostly peaceful people with no guns didn't have to show them on an afternoon when they security was lax..... otherwise except for that one afternoon, you do now.

JFC

There truly is no hope for any of you. Just a bunch of F'ing morons who will forever revel in that unmitigated failure of a president. 

1 hour ago, NVeagle said:

Only proposed in GA.  Just open up more voting places and the lines will be short.

Plus you really want them to give out water while in line:

s-l400.jpg

Except most places are doing the complete opposite of that....

1 hour ago, Bill said:

As someone who’s target demographic is women in the 22-32 range, I’ve talked to a lot of teachers. 
 

More or less what is happening with the kids online is that they don’t have the full six hours a day in class. Things are more sporadic and broken up. Also in school they are provided with a bit of structure and discipline throughout the day, whereas when they are at home they have a lot of distractions. Parents these days are trash, so the kids aren’t getting held to standards at home. They aren’t focusing. And they aren’t completing assignments. 

Yep....

15 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

JFC

There truly is no hope for any of you. Just a bunch of F'ing morons who will forever revel in that unmitigated failure of a president. 

:fishing:

16 hours ago, Boogyman said:

My kids are doing fine with it. I thought sending them back for a few half days a week was a complete waste of time and just kept them 100 percent virtual.

Same. Actually we’re doing somewhat better, as the kids don’t have to deal with the shenanigans, social stress, etc. that happens during a school day. We are also parents that embraced tech in the classrooms, taught the kids to use them at home from an early age, so the tech issues didn’t hold us back. (I remember the big hearings and arguments a few years ago when the school bought laptops/chromebooks for all the students. Where would they be now without them?) It’s just them, the teacher and other students over the computer. My son is doing better mainly because it’s a different situation; he wasn’t able to fall back into bad habits keeping him back: like forgetting homework, making careless mistakes.

Our schools went to a hybrid plan: 2 days in-person, 3 days at home. Everybody has to social distance, plexiglass on desks, wear a facemask all day, can’t keep anything in lockers, have to carry all your books and computer home and back each day... It sounds worse than staying virtual, so we opted to stay home until they open completely, back to normal. 

11 hours ago, Bill said:

More or less what is happening with the kids online is that they don’t have the full six hours a day in class. Things are more sporadic and broken up. Also in school they are provided with a bit of structure and discipline throughout the day, whereas when they are at home they have a lot of distractions. Parents these days are trash, so the kids aren’t getting held to standards at home. They aren’t focusing. And they aren’t completing assignments. 

Truthfully, I do see some of that. Because we are the parents that pay attention and check when school is on.  Teachers are always going back, checking assignments, and leaving time to catch up. I know most of those kids will be struggling anyway, and now the teacher can’t be there to help. 

btw, My kids classes are about 2/3 video instruction, 1/3 self-study. Except on Wednesday, schools are closed for cleaning between cohorts; everyone is virtual and it is all self-work. 

15 hours ago, VanHammersly said:

 

Republicans are consumed with BDS.  It's no way to live.

I love that he spelled it "week" lol. 

8 hours ago, toolg said:

We are also parents that embraced tech in the classrooms, taught the kids to use them at home from an early age, so the tech issues didn’t hold us back

Same. I'm not sure if that level of familiarity my oldest has is why she's didn't struggle with virtual, but I'm sure it didn't hurt. 

🤣

  • Author

The PC was meh. Not terrible, not great, just OK. There were a couple "Grandpa Joe" senior moments, and he seemed testy (but not flustered) at points. I think it's fine to not be able to answer some of these questions right now. They're still just two months into trying to figure out multiple crises, but I don't blame the press for being persistent on the issues. No major slips, so who cares? That's Biden, and he's clearly still getting his feet under him with in the whole press conference setting. I thought his strongest responses were on foreign policy and Congressional politics. Not his brightest moment overall, for sure, but I'm confident that there's more good things to come down the road.

Greatest display of a leader speaking since the emancipation proclamation IMO.

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

44 minutes ago, Kz! said:

🤣

"Anyway" :roll: 

1 minute ago, mikemack8 said:

"Anyway" :roll: 

That there is epic trolling of Trumpbots. It was a master class!

15 minutes ago, sameaglesfan said:

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Biden makes the media his B.  It's great to finally have an alpha in charge.

Let me know when Biden picks his favorite media outlet and calls on them first every press conference so they can ask their ridiculous soft ball question and throw in a conspiracy theory.

"President Biden, we all know republicans are evil fascists trying to stop your awesome agenda. Is it true many of them are wanted by the FBI?"

  • Author

On the filibuster...

 

Quote

About Filibusters and Cloture | Historical Overview

 

 

Whether praised as the protector of political minorities from the tyranny of the majority, or attacked as a tool of partisan obstruction, the right of unlimited debate in the Senate, including the filibuster, has been a key component of the Senate’s unique role in the American political system.

The tactic of using long speeches to delay action on legislation appeared in the very first session of the Senate. On September 22, 1789, Pennsylvania Senator William Maclay wrote in his diary that the "design of the Virginians . . . was to talk away the time, so that we could not get the bill passed.” As the number of filibusters grew in the 19th century, the Senate had no formal process to allow a majority to end debate and force a vote on legislation or nominations.

While there were relatively few examples of the practice before the 1830s, the strategy of "talking a bill to death” was common enough by mid-century to gain a colorful label—the filibuster. Derived from a Dutch word for "freebooter” and the Spanish "filibusteros”—to describe the pirates then raiding Caribbean islands—the term began appearing in American legislative debates in the 1850s. "I saw my friend standing on the other side of the House filibustering,” commented Mississippi’s Albert Brown on January 3, 1853. A month later, North Carolina senator George Badger complained of "filibustering speeches," and the term became a permanent part of our political lexicon.

The earliest filibusters also led to the first demands for what we now call "cloture,” a method for ending debate and bringing a question to a vote. In 1841 the Democratic minority attempted to run out the clock on a bill to establish a national bank. Frustrated, Whig senator Henry Clay threatened to change Senate rules to limit debate. Clay’s proposal prompted others to warn of even longer filibusters to prevent any change to the rules. "I tell the Senator,” proclaimed a defiant William King of Alabama, "he may make his arrangements at his boarding house for the [entire] winter.” While some senators found filibusters to be objectionable, others exalted the right of unlimited debate as a key tradition of the Senate, vital to tempering the power of political majorities.

Filibusters became more frequent in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, leading to serious debate about changing Senate rules to curtail the practice. At that point the Senate had grown larger and busier, and the sheer amount of work to be done in each session meant that a filibustering senator could disrupt the progress of the body and gain concessions from senators who wanted to get their bills passed.

In 1917, with frustration mounting and at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson, senators adopted a rule (Senate Rule 22) that allowed the Senate to invoke cloture and limit debate with a two-thirds majority vote. This 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, however, filibusters remained an effective means to block legislation, since a two-thirds vote was difficult to obtain. Over the next four decades, the Senate managed to invoke cloture only five times. Filibusters proved to be particularly useful to southern senators who sought to block civil rights legislation, including anti-lynching bills. Not until 1964 did the Senate successfully overcome a filibuster to pass a major civil rights bill. Nevertheless, a growing group of senators continued to be frustrated with the filibuster and pushed to change the cloture threshold. In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds of senators voting to three-fifths of all senators duly chosen and sworn, or 60 of the current 100 senators. Today, filibusters remain a part of Senate practice, although only on legislation. The Senate adopted new precedents in the 2010s to allow a simple majority to end debate on nominations.

The type of filibuster most familiar to Americans is the marathon speech by a small group of senators, or even a single senator, such as the filibuster staged by fictional senator Jefferson Smith in Frank Capra’s 1939 film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. There have been some famous filibusters in the real-life Senate as well. In 1917, for example, Wisconsin senator Robert La Follette used the filibuster to demand free speech during wartime. During the 1930s, Senator Huey P. Long effectively used the filibuster against bills that he thought favored the rich over the poor. In the 1950s Oregon senator Wayne Morse famously used the filibuster to educate the public on issues he considered to be of national interest. The record for the longest individual speech goes to South Carolina's Strom Thurmond, who filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/filibusters-cloture/overview.htm



It's a little more complicated than just "teh racizms."

Create an account or sign in to comment