dayman

strawman no

I would just watch if for yourself rather than read reviews. For one, the doc calls Stalin a brutal dictator and does not shy away from Soviet reality it simply highlights the protectionist concerns that drove many of its decisions. And the non-aggression pact with Hitler was absolutely to buy time given that the West wanted no part in war with Germany early on....Hitler and Stalin hated each other more than anybody else. I think the reason he calls it "untold" is simply b/c it highlights the impacts of the US on effecting the various conflicts it was engaged in as opposed to just presenting those as evil and us as reacting to them like highschool history does. Probably over compensates a bit but the first 3 episodes have been pretty good and not that controversial imo

Yes lawyers are to blame for all our problems. It's lawyers.

I say we pour research into acne. Poor teenagers. Looking like monsters in the formative years producing a slew of maladjusted citizens in adulthood.

Ya lol....there isn't anything untold...but it has been pretty good.

Stayed up and watched another 2. Still very good...although I am uncomfortable with HOW tough on Truman he is. Much of the Truman bashing regarding his rise, early history, and convention scandal is fine by me and likely without controversy but I do feel he's a bit over the top hard on him over the bomb...although I do agree the popular historical narrative is likely too soft on him. Also he seems to idealize Henry Wallace which is perhaps over compensation for his being historically forgotten but is also clearly a counter point to hit Truman harder and praise certain new deal policies that while practical would make constitutional purists cringe.

lol...like I said 10 part series I just watched 1...so don't hold me to it if it ends with him calling for the end of capitalism. WWII in part 1 was done well.

Anyone watch this? I just saw episode 1. I'm sure there will be much apprehension of the very idea of this given this boards leanings....and honestly some is deserved. But I can say this...episode 1 was a VERY good (imo) bit on WWII. I would recommend this and will definitely watch the rest.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/john-boehner-naked-protesters_n_2198887.html At least seven nude protesters stormed House Speaker John Boehner's (R-Ohio) office in the Longworth House Office Building on Tuesday, according to reports from Sahil Kapur of Talking Points Memo and others who were there. The group was protesting cuts to HIV/AIDS funding that is possible as part of the fiscal cliff negotiations.

Actually Reid is not proposing what I am...and what I am EASILY will still provide the minority with opportunity to curb the bill they just can't stop it outright ... there are many procedural protocols that bolster their power besides just filibuster. And once again...the Senate is just one body. It must make it through 3. Reid is merely proposing that you have to actually stand up and filibuster....and that you need to do it in debate not on a motion to proceed. That's not that radical. The fact that if 59 people want to vote for a bill....41 can prevent it EVEN FROM COMING UP FOR DEBATE is a huge problem with the senate...just remove your political thoughts and even just assume that whatever party you like is in power or recognize it will change...it shouldn't work that way.

Nothing and that's the point. You try to make your case, try to get at least some adjustments or amendments, if need be you filibuster for a full 2 weeks and try to draw public attention and discussion to the problem you have....and if all that goes on eventually 51 votes can pass it b/c that's the way it's is supposed to work! What is to check that is the fact that it must go through the other house, and then the President also to actually become a law. If as I said earlier a law makes it through both houses with a majority and then the President I don't know what more you want....that's now a law.

Even if that is the case...then so be it. There is a government elected by the people. Let it govern. If a lengthy filibuster breaks out over a policy for 2 weeks and nobody cares and it ends up passing by a majority of both houses and the president then you get what you pay for...self rule in America. If you can't convince your fellow congressment to stop or change it or anybody to care...then you can't stop if if you don't have the votes.

If there is a piece of legislation that after nearly 2 weeks of intense debate where a group of senators take the floor and rail against the evils of the bill, and the media covers it and people pay attention over the course of two weeks and then after all that is done the whole bill with everything it has become passes with the majority vote in both houses, goes through conference, and is signed by the president that is good enough. That is basically our government. The founders thought about making it 2/3rds...they didn't they decided only some special issues should be 2/3rds and that's what we have. Plain and simple. Slow, debate...yes...paralysis...no.

If after all the procedures that would still exist to modify...and all the forms of maneuvering that would still exist..."massive" legislation passes BOTH Senate and House following extensive debate and public concern attracted to it and THEN is signed by the President it's called passing a law. And then you can vote them out if you don't like it and others feel the same. That's government.

Filibuster: Get a handful of cosponsors for your filibuster, take the floor and speak on relevant issues to the bill. 67 votes for cloture for the first 3 days, 60 until the 7th, then 58 until the 10th, and finally 50 for cloture after 12 days. That is plenty of time to debate it all out and try to win public support and honestly with rules like that if real debate is happening cloture will be used more rarely. Likewise these anonymous holds are crap..they should be public as to who put the hold on and require a cosponsor or two and a stated reason that is relevant to the issue. Obviously the amendment process should not be abused by the leader. These aren't really partisan issues. It's about getting the thing working again. Likewise in the house there are reforms that could easily be made....closed rule reform, reforming the way the speaker is selected, etc would all help. All these reforms would help Congress regardless of who is in power. And regardless of how much you HATE Harry Reid

If you want to filibuster...then filibuster in person at least...and don't both doing on the motion to proceed if you have a problem with a bill show it in debate it's that simple. Simply informing the majority leader you have an intent to filibuster a motion to proceed is garbage.

lol ok now we can shift to to me and how sacred the term "hate" is..."hate on" then happy? who cares the point stands...boring as always

Either way it is more interesting to talk about policy and procedure than just repeat the same topics about the same 5 people even when no elections are being held. Boring PPP...booorrrringgg...

Typical PPP...talk about something...instant turn to talking about hating someone

This isn't a shoe on the other foot..this just a basic observation that it should be changed. I really could care less who is in power I would easily support the change regardless. Senate maneuvering "BS" moves are all over the place it's a procedural mess and the filibuster is exhibit A...so fix it...

Well obviously it isn't "for the budget"...it's for general senate business. For instance the law suit attempts to use the Dream Act for standing...

He's nobody and few people are afraid of him anymore.

And why are you so opposed? He's not trying to eliminate the filibuster fyi....just put it back together.

Also there is a lawsuit. Interesting standing issues and a point about majority rule and the strength/weakness of that doctrine in the constitution. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lyle-denniston/filibuster-constitutionality_b_1523875.html We checked the Constitution, and... Under Article I, Section 5, the Senate and the House is each given the authority "to determine the rules of its proceedings." But the new lawsuit, Common Cause v. Biden, Vice President, filed in Washington this week proceeds on the theory that this provision is only the beginning of the constitutional conversation, not the end of it. As long ago as 1892, the lawsuit notes, the Supreme Court in the case of United States v. Ballin declared that the Senate lacks the authority to write rules that conflict with other parts of the Constitution. As this lawsuit proceeds before District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, a judge who has a reputation for bold decision-making, it has real promise. But it will have to overcome some potential obstacles perhaps more daunting than what Article I says about congressional rules. The most significant of those is whether, in fact, this challenge is a "live controversy" -- that is, whether it is a genuine legal dispute, not simply an abstract exploration of an idea about the right way to run a government. The Constitution's Article III allows the federal courts to decide only "cases or controversies," and the Supreme Court has interpreted that to mean that the only people or groups allowed to sue in federal courts are those able to show that they face a genuine injury, that their harm was caused by the government action they challenge, and that the courts can fix it. That is what is called "standing to sue." The courts are generally not open to hear claims by members of Congress who lost battles in the legislative halls, and turn to the courts for relief, so lawmakers who feel frustrated by Senate Rule XXII probably can't complain on that basis alone. And the courts look with disfavor on lawsuits by individuals who only have a civic grievance that they share with many others in the political community. But this lawsuit, reflecting attorney Bondurant's extensive research on the subject, is based on claims of more direct harm to Common Cause and those who joined it in the lawsuit: four Democratic members of the House and three young adults who were born in Mexico but have grown up in the U.S. and would like to become citizens in order to avoid deportation. Each of those suing claims that the filibuster, and its practical effect of requiring 60 votes to get virtually anything done in the Senate, has had a direct, negative impact on them. The lawmakers' strongest claim to injury is that a filibuster barred the passage of a new law to force disclosure of the identities of corporations and wealthy individuals who are spending heavily in federal election campaigns, and as a result the lawmakers and their constituents have no way to track the sources of financial influence on campaigns. The House members' separate claim of injury -- that bills they had supported in the House died due to Senate filibusters -- appears to be weaker. The three young Mexican nationals claim a very specific injury from a filibuster: that their path to U.S. citizenship has been closed by a Senate filibuster that prevented the passage of what is called the DREAM Act to facilitate early entry into a legal status in the U.S. Those three would have benefited personally if that measure had passed. The Common Cause claim to injury does not seem as compelling, or as direct: It claims it has had to spend money and energy trying to get new campaign finance disclosure bills through Congress. That, however, is the fate of anyone who wants a bill passed, but doesn't get it enacted. There is another potential question hanging over this lawsuit: is there really constitutional status for majority rule? The lawsuit, of course, contends that, when the Framers wanted more than majority rule in Congress, they spelled it out explicitly (a two-thirds vote, for example, to override a presidential veto or to propose a constitutional amendment). And there is language in Supreme Court opinions (and in the Federalist Papers) lauding majority rule, but it may not be so firmly embedded in the structure of the Constitution that it can be enforced by the courts. Moreover, while the lawsuit argued that there was a clear majority in favor of each of the bills that did not get passed and that would have benefited the members of the House and the three young Mexican nationals, the proof of that -- usually, the number of votes cast on a failed motion to move the bills forward -- might not be interpreted by the courts as proof of what the tally would actually have been on final passage, had the measures come to such a vote. The lawsuit, though, has yet to play out, so its chances cannot be gauged definitely at this stage. It at least serves, though, to highlight the increase in filibustering at a time when legislative gridlock is widely recognized as a problem.