icwutudidthar

If you can't beat 'em join 'em?

LOL, foopants earns five.

Ah, foopants. I've been following your saga for lo, these many (four) videos.
Has the raucous mob finally broken your will?

I deeply value poeTV, especially after having read poe for the past 8 years. The voice of the people has spoken. Honestly, I was just hoping someone shared my sentiment and we could get back to farts and kung fu movies.

You don't have to watch the clips that look boring, try doing that sometime it it's awesome, HTH

Also, I wasn't aware that the Republicans had used reconciliation to pass the tax cuts. Until now I was kinda leery at the idea of going down this road, but now... Hell, ram it down their throats if that's what it takes.

The Senate only needs 51 votes, a majority, to pass legislation, no more. This is defined by the constitution, all other issues of vote tallies are social agreements. However, let me say that I couldn't find this in section II of the Constitution in my quick look over. I might be wrong, any help?

Article 1 Section 7 of the Constitution says that if the President vetoes a bill it may the be passed by the originating House with a vote of two thirds or more. To pass a bill, each House decides what constitutes a passing vote as per Article I Section 5 Clause 2 - "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member." The relevant Congressional procedure regarding reconciliation is known as the "Byrd Rule:" http://www.rules.house.gov/Archives/byrd_rule.htm

So I had this long multiple paragraph spiel typed up, but I decided to double check if someone else had beat me to it before I posted. foopants explained it much more succinctly than I would have--hear, hear! (No sarcasm intended.)

I felt the cold heat of the clock too, WH; 'twas beating upon us both. I am sad not to hear your spiel though.

I'm still curious, where is it implied that only a simple majority is needed for passage of laws (non-vetoed, etc) in a particular house?

This gets closer to the issue: http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.rules.house .gov%2F+reconciliation&aq=f

Honestly, it feels like wading through a concrete pond. You know the Google "site:" trick right?

Unfortunately it takes a 2/3 majority to change Senate rules, so it would actually be harder to abolish the filibuster than to overcome one in the first place.

I know, it just seems ridiculous that a few yokels from the deep south can essentially block any legislation they feel like with no repercussions. I think you guys should have said good riddance back in 1861.

Our yankee douches use it too. It doesn't serve any of us.