 |
|
Daylife/Getty Images used by permission
|
| “NO” – I must drill oil wells next to national parks. |
Senate Republicans on Wednesday blocked President Obama’s choice to be the number two official at the Department of the Interior.
On a vote of 57 to 39, they sustained a filibuster against David Hayes to be deputy interior secretary. It marked the first time the Senate has voted against one of Obama’s nominees.
Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah, is leading the fight against Hayes. He says his opposition is not about Hayes’ qualifications. Rather, Bennett says, the administration has not adequately answered his questions about why oil and gas leases in his state — which were approved in the last days of the Bush administration — were canceled by the Obama administration. He called the actions “political.”
The leases were “approved” by dimwit issuing one of his midnight executive orders before he was shoved out the door.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said the disputed leases are near national parks and the Interior Department did not cancel the leases but pulled them for review.
Reid said, “David Hayes will be confirmed. If I have to wait until Al Franken comes, he is going to be confirmed. … Everyone should understand that,” he said Wednesday. “If we happen to lose this today, I will just move to reconsider until we have the votes.”
Cripes – it took reporters reminding another batch of Republicans that hurricane season was coming before they relented on Craig Fugate as the new head of FEMA. And we all remember what a terrific job the Republicans did with that agency.
Sounds exactly like what the Democrats were doing a few years back on Bush nominees. What, you didn’t expect the Republicans to do the EXACT SAME THING!?!?!
Payback.
#19, thats a great idea. I mean its worked so well in the past. When the other side doesn’t let you do everything you want you simply bring in the military to quell the opposition. Next maybe, we can start to arrest and execute people for not voting for democrats.
After that we will just avoid this entire election problem, by not having them. After all, why bother, since you are right and everyone else is wrong, its just a waste of time correct?
Dallas, you are whats wrong with this country. A perfect example of how Germany of the 1930′s and 40′s was able to come into power.
#17, It seems straightforward that having a more reasonable distribution of wealth will make for a more stabler and happier country.
Who gets to do the distributing? The mob?
#7 – You mean the soon-to-be Senator from Minnesota Representing the States of California and New York.
#22 bob
Dallas is an idiot, get used to it.
To Alex Wollangk, re: #16
… The best, and most responsible post here.
First of all, as others have said, the Democratic Party has a majority. As fun as it is to blame everything bad on Republicans, it just doesn’t ring true.
Second, I tend to agree with those favoring leaving US oil under the ground as a “bank” while we use up oil from hostile offshore nations. But, you have to drill the wells and have the pumping equipment at the ready to switch on at short notice. This would defend against sudden adverse actions by the OPEC cartel.
Third, we have to get out of the habit of burning petroleum as a fuel. It is finite, and it is extremely useful for other purposes. Damned near anything will burn if you set the stage right. And we should also be getting away from burning things for power as well.
On the other hand, human nature being what it is, maybe we will only do that when the oil runs out?
Ooops I almost forgot the most important part:
Reduce the Surplus Population!
@23
‘Who gets to do the distributing? The mob?’
I don’t know that anybody does particularly. We live in a legal framework, that enables a certain pattern of wealth distribution.
Assuming the majority of wealth is controlled by such a system (for example drug money is largely outside the legal system), then changing elements of the system can change the distribution.
Note that ‘the system’ is completely artificial, it doesn’t have to be the way it is. IMHO its largely the way it is because its been lobbied that way. By presumably people who would gain from such an arrangement and have the funds to do so. Ie not the poor.
Some examples…
Patents. I think we can agree that patents can be a good thing, but they are in many cases being abused for profit.
The same with copyright law. Artists need to make a living. Should copyright be 20 years, 50 years or forever? Changing such a period will change the distribution of wealth.
The largest multinational companies can pay next to no tax, when they should be doing a significant part of the heavy lifting.
I’d argue the concept of a corporation is being abused, in allowing a small percentage of people within such an entity to make huge amounts of money as fast as possible, and then jump ship with no penalty when the messy edifice falls down. For example look at AIG, and the banking fiasco.
And so on. Ideally you’d have a simple transparent set of rules that achieve a reasonable distribution.
So ‘who gets to do the distributing’ misses the point. You could argue that the people who decide the rules do the distributing, but they do not, as deciding said rules should be a large part of what politics is about.
For that to work the framework has to be communicated impartially to an engaged public, that can have real impact on the results.
As it stands we live in a world of confusion, with multiple conflicting messages, for conflicting interests, with little reporting and little engagement. Worst of all is seems the public is and feels effectively powerless.
As an example I’d again give the bank bailouts – which the majority were against, and told there representatives, and yet still went through. And its still not clear why.
As an example I’d again give the bank bailouts – which the majority were against, and told there representatives, and yet still went through. And its still not clear why.
Because the U.S. Congress is a fully owned subsidiary of the banking industry. Can anyone remember the last time the Congress voted for something that benefited the people of the country instead of the corporations?
The Repubs have 57 Senators? Eideard, can you answer this one?
#22 Bob said. “..you are whats wrong with this country. A perfect example of how Germany of the 1930’s and 40’s was able to come into power…”
Cheeses Christ, Bob. Let me reel you back into reality. My comment was sarcasm.
Instead of being such a simpleton, maybe should comment on the issue at hand – the GOP (you know, the losing party) is purposely blocking a nominee to do the people work because the GOP are sour losers.
Maybe you should focus on the real issue. The people voted the GOP fascists out of office for Obama to do what he was elected to do. The losers, are throwing their lame bodies in front of progress. Get it?
# 31 Dallas said, “maybe should comment on the issue at hand – the GOP (you know, the losing party) is purposely blocking a nominee to do the people work because the GOP are sour losers.”
You mean the GOPs 57 Senators vs. the Dems 39? Explain.
Why are you blaming the Republicans…they don’t seem to have enough people to block anything.
Paddy-O,
I think you got it backwards. It takes 60 votes to end a debate. 57 senators voted to end debate and 39 voted against ending debate.
It’s called a filibuster, it’s quite a normal practice, designed to stall proceedings on a particular item before the Senate, by keeping the debate going, the preventing it being acted upon.
It’s the only tactic that a party in the minority has to fight the tyranny of a super-majority.
Democrats or Republicans, they both use it for good and evil.
(Yet, you could be just trying to get under Dallas’ skin)
About time someone slowed the Titanic
I can’t believe that you have the mendacity to say this given the incredibly worse behavior of the Democrats toward Republican nominees.
Have you no shame or no memory?
Hmm.
Let’s see…Clinton did a midnight deal before he left, warding off millions of acres of land. I don’t recall that being cancelled by Bush. Was it?
About oil…we handle 85% of our own oil needs. We have more reserves than those on the left would like to admit. If you keep walling them off then that leaves us even MORE dependent on the Middle East…something which we could do without, especially since their own oil fields are starting to wither.
And about the population….surprise! The world population will stable. Population figures are dropping as we speak. In a few decades most of the world will be dealing with A) more aging members of society, and B) fewer young workers to sustain them. So, for all the individuals seeking a drop in human population, it will happen. With or without Eco-socialists manipulating matters.
#37, Selvy
Let’s see…Clinton did a midnight deal before he left, warding off millions of acres of land.
I think you’ve been listening to Boss Limpdick again. Clinton put land into the National Trust, away from the speculators. It was Bush who gave away all the land.
About oil…we handle 85% of our own oil needs.
That last happened about 1965. Currently America produces about 40% of its own oil. The rest comes from Canada, Mexico and Venezuela with a small “all the rest” from other nations.
Mid-East oil is more likely to find its way to the EU, Japan, or China than America.
Of course we don’t need to drill.
We are going to fix our foreign dependence for energy by building wind mills and running off hydrogen! Not!
Many of the greenies don’t even like windmills. I think it comes down to everybody but them should live in one room homes with a community water tap and community outhouse and walk to and from work while living on a thousand or less a year.
#8 Mr Fusion Coils In a Twist
Im not the same RETARD as #2 and I was DEFENDING EIDEARD..
You are such an arsehole sometimes