I Make It 99 To 1

[Flanders]

I’m laying book that Harry Reid changes it back after the Democrats lose the Senate next year. He’ll have almost two full months to change it back before the Republicans take over.

Reid, Democrats trigger ‘nuclear’ option; eliminate most filibusters on nominees
By Paul Kane and William Branigin,

Reid, Democrats trigger ?nuclear? option; eliminate most filibusters on nominees - The Washington Post

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Welcome to American politics.

Now, quit whining.

 

[HenryBHough]

Reid has proven how easily rules can be bent to suit the mood of the party in power. Should he "undo" his blunder you can count on it being thrown back in his face as the first item on the agenda after the new Senators are sworn in. He unleashed it and he is going to live with it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If Reid changes it back in case of a GOP majority for 2017, then the GOP can end the filibuster altogether.

 

[Flanders]

Reid has proven how easily rules can be bent to suit the mood of the party in power. Should he "undo" his blunder you can count on it being thrown back in his face as the first item on the agenda after the new Senators are sworn in. He unleashed it and he is going to live with it.

To HenryBHough: I hope you’re right. Unfortunately, Democrats never seem to be held accountable for anything.

I always wondered why Democrats get away with changing anything that annoys them. They change the Constitution at will. They change laws with executive orders, bureaucratic regulations, or simply by ignoring them. Harry Reid’s recent rule change was unique only in that the rule he changed had been in effect for so long.

Thanks to the politics of change today’s 20 million illegal immigrants began their journey in the 1960s. They are the result of LBJ and Ted Kennedy twisting immigration laws into affirmative action programs as an excuse for not enforcing the law. I’m not certain if open-borders was the first “change” but it certainly was the most successful change Democrats ever pulled off.

FDR’s scheme to pack the High Court failed although it probably was the first attempt to make changes without a constitutional amendment. Democrats have been changing the federal courts with liberal activists since the FDR years. Harry Reid justified his rule change in order to confirm three more such federal judges.

Barack Taqiyya promised change and he delivered it with and without legislation. The guy who sold himself as a moral beacon for hope and change turned out to be nothing more than a lying sack of shit. Nobody seems to notice that his most successful change was changing his lies into moral imperatives.

All things considered it’s time for conservatives to learn the politics of change. I have a theme song for congressional candidates as well as for the Republican nominating convention:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZzFTQMwNk8&feature=player_detailpage]THERE'LL BE SOME CHANGES MADE~ Benny Goodman & His Orchestra 1939 .wmv - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[martybegan]

If Reid changes it back in case of a GOP majority for 2017, then the GOP can end the filibuster altogether.

Yep, the flood gates have been opened. It would be a pleasure to hear the dems scream bloody murder in January 2015 over this if they lose the Senate.

 

[eagle1462010]

Fire with Fire.......................

Perhaps that is what they need to receive after they lose the Senate..................

They fired the first shot.............

 

[mamooth]

Given that the Democrats are honest and consistent, no such thing would happen.

Republicans, you always need to remember that we Democrats aren't as corrupt and dishonest as you. Don't blindly assume we'd act as badly as you would in the same situation. Not everyone shares your complete lack of ethics.

 

[rightwinger]

Why would he change it back?

Obama is still President in 2015. It is not until a Republican is President (like that would happen) and making appointments that it would come into play

So....i will take your 99-1

 

[martybegan]

Given that the Democrats are honest and consistent, no such thing would happen.

Republicans, you always need to remember that we Democrats aren't as corrupt and dishonest as you. Don't blindly assume we'd act as badly as you would in the same situation. Not everyone shares your complete lack of ethics.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n5E7feJHw0]laugh harder - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Flanders]

Given that the Democrats are honest and consistent, no such thing would happen.

Republicans, you always need to remember that we Democrats aren't as corrupt and dishonest as you. Don't blindly assume we'd act as badly as you would in the same situation. Not everyone shares your complete lack of ethics.

To mamooth: Both political parties harbor ethics violators and crooks in their ranks. The Democrat party has the distinction of being the party of liars. Democrats lie about everything from start to finish. Democrats lie when they are not talking because they are thinking about the next lie they plan to tell. Democrat Alger Hiss was the highest ranking official to ever go to prison for lying although it should have been for treason. The Democrat party has never been able to get out from under Hiss.

Democrats lie when they run for office by not telling voters they will always vote to make Americans subservient to the United Nations —— then they turn around and swear they are loyal Americans with only love for this country in their hearts. So you’re either putting me on, or you truly believe that lying is ethical.

Here’s one ludicrous example of ethics in the party of liars. When one of their own got caught she was moved over to the Senate Rules Committee:

Senator Dianne Feinstein annually supervised the appropriation of billions of dollars for specific military construction projects. The San Francisco lawmaker supervised her own staff of military construction experts and she lobbied Pentagon officials to support her favorite projects.

She wielded quite a bit of power and succeeded in steering hundreds of billions of dollars in military contracts to companies partially owned by her wealthy husband, Richard Blum. One company alone earned $792 million from military construction and environmental cleanup projects approved by Feinstein’s committee and another $759 million.

The blatant ethics violation and obvious conflict of interest was first exposed earlier this year by a weekly Northern California publication. The story details how Feinstein voted over the years for appropriations that enriched her husband’s firms and that her top legal advisor also happens to be one of her husband’s longtime business partners; in other words, a financial beneficiary of the senator’s decisions.

XXXXX​

Perhaps Feinstein quit her coveted military construction committee position because she is taking her new role as the senate ethics police quite seriously. As the new chair of the Senate Rules Committee Feinstein, for years an ethics violator, is actually in charge of regulating her colleagues’ ethical behavior.

Violations Force Feinstein Military Committee Resignation
March 29, 2007

Violations Force Feinstein Military Committee Resignation | Judicial Watch​

 

[mamooth]

If the Republicans take the senate, I'll be back to take your 99-1 bet.

Being generous, I'll only ask for a 10-1 payout. If you really think it's 99-1, you should still jump on the bet.