Dare I share my understanding of the Senate's Torture Bill

[BuyingThyme]

People, myself included, seem to be confused about the issue of filibuster. This is apparently by design.

I'm going to explain my understanding, and then you can say horrible things about how I do or do not understand anything (like you did last week):

My understanding is that our Democratic leadership last week, by proxy, surrendered our Constitution to John McCain. A small group of Democratic Senators promised to support (in kind) anything to which John McCain agreed in his "compromise" with the Chimp.

So, even though there was absolutely no real compromise, and they were tricked out of our Constitutional rights by Evil John McCain, the Democrats have decided to honor their words and stand down while the Constitution is rendered quaint.

And though I earlier heard Harry Reid on the radio, explaining that the Democrats do not have the votes to sustain a filibuster, I also understand that Harry Reid is not telling the truth. I understand that, even though Harry said the votes are not there, he's not lifting a finger to find out whether or not the votes are there. And he sure as hell isn't lobbying to get the votes, as one might expect from a leader of the Democratic Party.

So, there are no rules preventing a filibuster, but we're being lied to in hopes that we'll shut up and sit down.

Is that about right?

[Orrex]

1. I wouldn't say that they "surrendered" it to McCain

It was more like he and they were looking at a copy of it, and where he saw the chance to score some points for his bullshit "maverick" image, the Dems saw an opportunity to flee in the other direction.

But surrender? No way!

[DoYouEverWonder]

2. The elephants are rampaging

and sometimes it's best to step aside because you can't stop them anyway. At least not until Nov 7th.

There will be a number of legal challenges to this bill. Bush can sign it with as many pens as he pleases. It will be official evidence of his crimes against humanity.

[peaches2003]

5. Nov. 7th

After the elections in 2000 and 2004, do you really think they are going to give up power in 2006 and take the chance of losing their rubber stamp House and Senate? I certainly don't and those 2 past elections prove they can do it.

[Hugin]

8. 2002 also...

Don't forget that one... The threat of 'Soft on Terror' lost the Dems
that one.

[DoYouEverWonder]

11. The spread is too wide this time

and they know it.

We are watching them dig their own graves with these stunts. They think they can refuse to leave office, but they no longer have enough power to get away with something so blatant.

[peaches2003]

13. No?

They have the voting machines. Doesn't matter who votes; the only thing that matters is who counts the votes (or manufactures the voting machines).

[mmonk]

3. Beats me.

[LSK]

4. I will believe it when I see it

When you make a "deal" arnt you supposed to get something in return? What did they get? A bunch of Amendments that got shot down?

:shrug:

[EFerrari]

7. They got to appear to struggle for nearly a whole day.

[BuyingThyme]

9. I wonder how long it took to write.

I'll look it up.

[BuyingThyme]

10. One hundred sixteen days.

Thanks for asking. Super question!

[EFerrari]

12. I wonder what the Disgusting Duo changed last night.

What was that visit all about? They don't have to show up to blackmail, they probably have handlers for that.

[EFerrari]

6. Yes. n/t

[Toots]

14. Well I heard it already came to a vote and passed 51-48

It only takes 40 to sustain a filibuster so saying they did not have the votes is just plain false.....