Comments on: Paul Krugman’s Filibuster Fear-Mongering

By: JadedByPolitics

JadedByPolitics — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 20:58:19 +0000

to REASON! Krugman is nasty, disgusting piece of human excrement who is WRONG 100% of the time. That he is paid a penny for his opinions shows the true INSANITY of the LEFTIST media!

By: Third Street

Third Street — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 20:57:08 +0000

…and this douchenozzle had no problem at all with “holds” when they were being used against Bush appointments.

By: wallahi

wallahi — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 20:52:01 +0000

…but it’s quite clear that what he’s really objecting to in that piece is not the filibuster, but Senate “holds”, whereby a single senator can block a nominee for any old reason. I think you can make a principled case in defense of the filibuster, but there’s really no excuse for holds.

By: Dan Perrin

Dan Perrin — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 15:39:50 +0000

HillaryCare and ObamaCare — any questions?

By: johnt

johnt — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 15:18:29 +0000

Is there anything these madmen actually believe in?
Deficits are bad, dissent is patriotic, privacy and choice so important, everything is thrown overboard now. It’s scary how little they believe in, just naked will to power, and as always, pure hate.

If or when they lose power in Congress the fillibuster will become important again. Krugman? a lunatic, but what else is new.

By: Brian Darling

Brian Darling — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 15:07:29 +0000

Keep them coming. I guess my “Captain of the Obama Administration Cheerleading Squad” line is a big hit. I may be over the line with that one – MSDNC seems to have a squad of candidates for “Captain.”

By: Brian Darling

Brian Darling — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 15:03:51 +0000

If the Dems have the will, they can set a precedent, with 50 Senators + the VP, that the filibuster is unconstitutional and ignore the explicit rules of the Senate. You do need 2/3rds vote of Senators to change the rules, but the Ds are preparing to rid the Senate of the filibuster rule by using a strong arm tactic of having the Senate declare, with a simple majority, that the filibuster is unconstitutional. Notwithstanding the fact that the constitution clearly states that both chambers can set their own rules.
This is a real threat and liberal Ds want to abolish the filibuster so they can establish one party rule for a few months. Get ready for ObamaCare, Cap and Tax, Big Brother for Wall Street and some extreme lefty nominees to populate the federal bench if the Ds pull the trigger on what is commonly referred to in the Senate as the Nuclear Option.

By: spinoneone

spinoneone — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 14:45:10 +0000

Never forget that the “progressives”/socialists/liberals/etc do not want to govern. The want to RULE.

By: kyle8

kyle8 — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 14:43:59 +0000

They have always been horrible ignorant partisan leftest rabble.

Go all the way back to the 1930′s when they deliberately covered up for Stalin’s crimes and lauded the Soviet Union.

By: spinoneone

spinoneone — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 14:43:11 +0000

Senate Rule 22.2 requires a “2/3rds majority of those Senators present and voting” to close debate on a rules change. No vote can take place unless and until debate ends. All other cloture and filibuster ending votes requires 3/5ths of those Senators present and voting.

By: Repair_Man_Jack

Repair_Man_Jack — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 14:39:55 +0000

If the Congress ever did vote to reject the increase in statutory debt limit, it would force a lot of cowardly maggots to make a lot of very hard decisions. people who have indulged in a Visigoth Holiday at the expense of our future generations would suddenly get calls from the collection agency. Something to do with a Visa card with an over-the-top balance. $1.9T worth of ver-the-top balance that these politicians didn’t have the cratch to even begin paying.

That would end the Keynesian delusion. It would also disrupt the use of bribery to pass legislation and the use of pork projects to buy up votes. It would totally stop the our evil and mendacious perversion of representative democracy dead in its tracks. I wish the GOP were legitimately that much of a threat.

By: Sundayjack

Sundayjack — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 14:31:09 +0000

He still hasn’t figured out that the interwebz keeps track of his opinions, and highlights them when they change. Wasn’t too long ago when he was writing about the filibuster as a safeguard against those “nasty rightwing extremists.” If you hate his opinion today, just wait a few years – it’ll change. Google “Krugman vs. Krugman” and the examples come a’flooding in.

Dude hides behind a Nobel. Hasn’t had an original thought in two decades.

By: Return to Revolution

Return to Revolution — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 14:24:54 +0000

Has been discredited since Wilson got it. Krugman is working hard to make sure the econ prize is also a joke.

By: AceInTX

AceInTX — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 13:39:12 +0000

By: AceInTX

AceInTX — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 13:24:19 +0000

They used to feign objectivity back then but Pinch and the editorial board have sold out now and have given up the charade.

By: throwback59

throwback59 — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 13:22:43 +0000

filibuster seems to be “18th century Poland”, I’ve heard that reference by a talking head Monday. The left must have researched a case where a legislature could hold up votes with one objection.
As was done in Massachusetts where the legislature took away the govenor’s power to appoint a senator, then restored it when a democrat was in office, dems want to change the rules to suit their majority/minority status.

By: AceInTX

AceInTX — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 13:21:33 +0000

By: djemi

djemi — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 13:11:39 +0000

would they need to 60 votes to be able to close the debate on the rule change as those are the current rules?

By: mbecker908

mbecker908 — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 13:05:39 +0000

simple majority. Which is fitting because there’s not much more simple than a pack of Senators.

And yes, Lindsay is that stupid. So’s Voinavich.

By: mbecker908

mbecker908 — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 13:03:59 +0000