*** Warning- Rant Follows ***
I am up to my armpits with the idiots in my party, and if nothing else, the loyalty test I discussed below and the idiotic brinksmanship over the filibuster have pushed me to a near tipping point.
First off, let me state again the media is supposed to be fucking neutral. They are supposed to have a skeptical, neutral stance when they can’t confirm things. That is what they are paid to do. Yet people want them to go out and act as a public relations firm, for the nation. Not their fucking job, idiots. Karen Hughes gets the paycheck for that. If you want to piss the media off, stop thbe bullshit in our prisons and STOP GIVING THEM EXCUSES TO REPORT SHIT. Like, for example the Tillman cover-up. I can’t wait to hear the enlightened comments about this ‘anti-military’ story.
As for the filibuster bullshit, we slit our own damned throats with that. I would like an up or down vote on nominees, but I just don’t have it in me to lie about the situation.
We changed the rules of the game, and then acted all shocked when the Democrats (who are in no way without sin) got pissed. We stopped the blue slips and other options once we became the majority. The Constitutional issue is nothing more than nonsense to sell the naked power grab, and that is what it was. Bush never expected for all of his judges to get confirmed- no reasonable President would.
We were going to break the Senate rules THAT WE AGREED TO AND OPERATED UNDER WITH FEW PROBLEMS in order to make the rule change. And worse, we were going to set the stage so the minority party has no options, unwilling to recognize the fact that we will be in the minority again (sooner than these morons recognize, the rate we are going now- seen Bush’s approval ratings?), and that the filibuster would be dead for everything if successfully killed for judges. Only an idiot would argue otherwise, which, of course is why so many members of my party are doing just that. They are idiots.
And this isn’t a position shift for me. I even stated on Jeff Goldstein and Bill Ardolino’s radio show that I wouldn’t bash the GOP if they used the nuclear option. I am not.
I am bashing them for making the option necessary by refusing to play by the rules we lived with for years, and I am outraged that the idiots, upon hearing a reasonable compromise has been achieved, still want to pursue the nuclear option. They don’t have to go nuclear, BUT THEY STILL FUCKING WANT TO.
Worse than that, they want the heads of the seven Senators who dared to go against the will of the wingnuts. Because, in the world of idiots, those seats are guaranteed seats for Republicans. Lincoln Chaffee- why, he owes Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council his job.
It is all or nothing for these assholes. You are with us or against us. There can be no middle-ground. We must have complete power, complete control, or we just blow up the fucking system and remake it our way, because, after all, we won an election by 2% of the vote.
And why?
For the bankruptcy bill? To please Dobson and keep the lunatics happy? To ban stem cell research and keep harassing the fags? To give the Democrats a defeat, however bad it is for the country? To strong-arm enbough votes to pass the budget busting Prescription Drug Pill? For deficits as far as the eye can see? To allow more censorship of entertainment and make obscenity criminal? To pass more mandatory minimus while cutting rehabilitation?
So, wingnuts, you have set the stage. I understand I am either with you or against you, and you are unwilling to advance any legislation I think is sensible, and you are unwilling to to think twice about things I dislike. I get it- you want my vote and you want me to shut the fuck up. I get it- with you or against you.
But let me warn you- the Democrats just don’t seem that damned scary anymore. You people have me to the point that if it were 2004 all over again, and I knew what I know now, I don’t know if I necessarily would have pulled the lever for that two-faced weasel Kerry, but I would have found it EXCEPTIONALLY difficult to vote for Bush.
[/rant]*** Update ***
The Physics Geek writes:
See, here’s where I think that John might not be seeing the big picture. Does he really think that the next time the Democrats hold the power in the Senate that they won’t change the Senate rules to suit their purposes? After all, Robert Byrd did it in the not so distant past, reducing the number of votes for cloture from 67 down to 60.
Let’s go all out in this example. Hillary becomes president in 2008 and the Dem’s sweep to power in the Senate riding on her coattails. Now imagine that she nominates some left-wing ideologue who believes that it’s okey-dokey to legislate from the bench. Now the Republicans decide to filisbuster this unreasonable candidate. Does John actually believe that the Democrats will spend more than a few minutes trying to find some sort of compromise to get an up-or-down vote in the Senate? I don’t think so. After some public appearances decrying the Republicans’ stonewalling, the Senate Democrats will change the filibuster rule so that cloture can be invoked with only 51 votes for judges. Once the judicial filibuster is broken, those same 51 Democrats will then vote en masse for whomever Hillary nominated. Count on it.
A.) We’ll fight that battle if an when it comes, and we would be in the right then.
B.) The logic escapes me- They might do it in the future, so we go aheads and blow it up now? Quick, everyone stick a red hot poker up your ass- because someone might do it to you in the future, so you might as well do it now.
Brad R.
Brrrr… do you guys feel a shrill in the room? ;-)
Libertine
WOW!!! Nice fucking rant John!!! ;)
All I have to say is that the GOP should bring back the Blue Slip to the Senate Judiciary Committee and the filibustering of Judicial nominess will end. It was there when Clinton was in office…but it is not now that Bush is in? Can’t let the evil democrats use the tools the GOP had to block judicial nominees?
And I hope your frustration lessens John. I would lose all hope for the GOP and this country if people like you left the party.
Stormy70
The Dems have no serious foreign policy to put forth, so they still scare me. The Republicans can piss me off on occasion, but I trust them on National Security, and I trust them to put America’s interests ahead of the UN’s or Europe’s. Senate rules are changed all the time, why is it such a big deal if Republicans do it? I’m just not that excited about it.
Andrei
You go girl!
I guess the real question for me lately is:
When will the Democrats grow some friggin’ balls and take advantage of the situation and start offering real alternatives? Because if they don’t, an entire section of moderates will be left hanging in the wind. The true swing vote, imho.
How far does one party have to sink before the other buys themselves a clue?
Andrei
“The Republicans can piss me off on occasion, but I trust them on National Security…”
LMAO.
Repeat after me: There were no WMDs. There were no WMDs. There really, honest to God, were no WMDs.
Now be a good little soldier and go volunteer for the war effort. If you trust the GOP so much, why not put your life truly in their hands and head on over and join the fight?
JPS
Andrei:
“Repeat after me: There were no WMDs. There were no WMDs. There really, honest to God, were no WMDs.”
OK, there were no WMDs. The fact that to a lot of people in your party, this is all the proof you need that Iraq was not a threat, never was going to be a threat, and this war was misbegotten, is part of the reason I don’t trust your party with national security.
Obviously there’s no other reason it could have been necessary, so all that’s left to say is ad hominem.
Libertine
So JPS…
Are we now going to invade countries because they might pose some kind of undefined threat to US interests at some point in the near or distant future? If that is the case I don’t trust your party with our national security…even though I have trusted them in the past.
Carrie
OK, there were no WMDs. The fact that to a lot of people in your party, this is all the proof you need that Iraq was not a threat, never was going to be a threat, and this war was misbegotten, is part of the reason I don’t trust your party with national security.
Obviously there’s no other reason it could have been necessary, so all that’s left to say is ad hominem.
Oh, I do believe there was a lot more proof. Like Saadam was not linked to Al Qaida. Like Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
And, I do believe there were other reasons besides the lame excuse that Iraq was a threat! Like oil. Like building military bases.
JPS
Libertine,
Iraq wasn’t some vague, hypothetical threat. If you’ve read the Duelfer report and are familiar with Oil-for-food, and still don’t think it’s a good thing the Baathist regime was deposed, rather than being allowed to endure, with power being handed eventually to Saddam Hussein’s even nastier sons, then I concede I won’t convince you.
(John could actually give a more eloquent defense of this war than I could, and has in the past, but he’s more pissed off at me than you right now, so I don’t expect any help here.)
Carrie:
Like oil. If we were after cheap oil, we’d have cut a deal and lifted the sanctions.
“Like Saadam [sic] was not linked to Al Qaida [sic].” Interesting, isn’t it, that Zarqawi is such a key figure in the insurgency?
But of course, al Qaeda working in league with Baathists to kill Americans only happened because we invaded. It never, ever would have happened otherwise. We know that, because otherwise George Bush might have been right, and we just can’t have that.
“Like Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.” I know. I believed, and believe, that had we not fought this war, the risk that Saddam Hussein’s regime would play a key part in an attack that would make 9/11 pale by comparison was simply too high. And if we were wrong, then at the very least we’d have removed one of the most loathsome regimes onthe planet, and made it possible for something better to take its place.
But again, to many on the left, George Bush must not have been right about anything. So all is lost, the elections don’t mean anything, and hey: where were those WMDs?
Oh, and Libya coming clean on its nuke program–that had NOTHING AT ALL to do with Iraq!
Libertine
Iraq wasn’t some vague, hypothetical threat. If you’ve read the Duelfer report and are familiar with Oil-for-food, and still don’t think it’s a good thing the Baathist regime was deposed, rather than being allowed to endure, with power being handed eventually to Saddam Hussein’s even nastier sons, then I concede I won’t convince you.
(John could actually give a more eloquent defense of this war than I could, and has in the past, but he’s more pissed off at me than you right now, so I don’t expect any help here.)
JPS…
Saddam was a monster. But there are many monsters in this world and we are not in a rush to make regime changes in those cases. Where is the consistency in our position? Saddam had engaged in a war with Iran…invaded Kuwait…and gassed the Kurds in his own country…but again there are many other despots in the world including Musharraf (sp?) in Pakistan who we are not only tolerent of but we call them friends.
I could see invading Iraq if there was TANGIBLE proof of WoMD or a 9/11 link. But those claims are still unproven. So while removing Saddam might be a goal making the war “worthwhile”, many American troops are dying not defending American citizens but trying to protect Iraqi citizens…who appear entitely ungrateful for the most part.
TJ Jackson
Mr. Cole:
You refer to blue slips. Exactly why do you believe the majority party must yield to the minority? Thios isn’t historical practise in this process. The senate majority leader has always had the option on acting on blue slips. Why should a qualified judge be disqualified on this basis? Perhaps the democrats acted in a different way in the past and nominated judges that suited the GOP’s liking?
CaseyL
Bush ignored warnings about the 9/11 attack, and you still trust the GOP with American security?
Bush’s War has broken the military, and you still trust the GOP with American security?
Bush’s idiotic military planning let Iraqi insurgents loot weapons installations like QaaQaa; the insurgents are now using what Bush let them have to blow up US soldiers and Iraqi civilians (550 deaths last month, the most yet); and you still trust the GOP with American security?
Bush’s dolt, Bolton, damnear torpedoed the Libyan deal, undermined the N Korea talks, and was completely blindsided by A Q Khan, and you still trust the GOP with American security?
When Bolton tells the UN that we “must” use military force against Iran, will you believe him?
When Bush calls for the bombing of Iran’s nuclear development facilities, will you support him?
When Bush announces that US ground forces will enforce regime change in Iran, will you cheer? Will you spend even a second wondering how we’re going to do that, with our overextended, undersupplied soldiers?
When Iran explodes into insurgency, assassination, and chaos; and the mess spills back over into Iraq; and we’re trying to control two countries with less than 200,000 troops, will you go on believing Bush when he says “Progress is being made”?
When we look up one day and realize we’ve been fighting a war for four years, and there’s news of ongoing atrocities at US-held prisons, and we’re losing US soldiers by the hundreds each day, and the war bill tops $500 billion, and there’s no end in sight, and every hand in the ME is raised against us, and we have no allies, and N Korea has tested a nuclear bomb or two… will you still trust the GOP with America’s security?
JPS
Libertine:
“Where is the consistency in our position?”
There isn’t any. That doesn’t trouble me too much. We move where we can. If we’d preempted North Korea, we’d have been certain to trigger a catastrophe at least as great as the one we were trying to avoid.
No, Saddam Hussein’s despotism doesn’t in itself justify our removing him. It is, however, a pretty good reason we shouldn’t feel too bad if our reason for removing him–an appraisal of the risk he posed to our national security–turned out to be wrong.
(Before someone chimes in to tell me all the horrible things that happened because of this war, and all the reasons we should feel bad: I know, and I don’t disagree with you, except possibly on the conclusion you draw.)
“I could see invading Iraq if there was TANGIBLE proof of WoMD or a 9/11 link. But those claims are still unproven.” A 9/11 link will not be proven. I don’t think there was one. I don’t need there to have been one, to make my case.
As for WMD: We know they had existed in the past. We had been very wrong in the past about the state of Iraq’s nuclear program–in 1990, we thought they were a good decade away; in 1991, after the Kuwait war, we found out they had been frighteningly closer than we thought. In 1995, we thought they’d shut down their bioweapons program. Then Hussein’s son-in-law defects, tells us they hadn’t; then he goes back and is shot.
In 1998, our inspectors are pulled out, because they weren’t being allowed to inspect. We had simply no idea what was going on since then.
Would you really want a leader, post-9/11, to wait until we knew for sure? Bear in mind that our other intelligence failures have tended toward a false sense of security. We were wrong in the opposite direction about Libya.
What we did was to say, All right, we don’t know, but we have good reason to be worried. The cease-fire of our last war was contingent upon your giving up these programs and showing that you’ve done so. So you’re going to come clean once and for all, or we’re going to go back and finish this war.
You seem to think we should have waited until we knew for sure. I would argue that the risks of that, for all we could reasonably have known, were too high. What’s tangible proof, and how were we going to get it?
Asfor the Iraqis seeming ungrateful, well, some are. But I think it’s entirely unfair to generalize as you are. Look at the risks being taken by millions of them, to try to take this chance at a less cruel society, and build something out of it.
There are a lot more of them, than there are insurgents. To dismiss their bravery, as you might not but so many on your side do, because above all George Bush must be wrong, is downright nasty.
JPS
CaseyL:
You posted while I was writing my windy last comment.
“When Bush calls for the bombing of Iran’s nuclear development facilities, will you support him?”
If I think he’s right, and if I think we can doo it without triggering a larger catastrophe than the one we’re trying to avoid: Yes, I will.
Of course, most people making your argument will oppose him if it happens. But if we don’t, and the Iranian bomb goes off, they will then blame Bush for not having stopped it, and point out the inconsistency with Iraq.
syn
I’m wondering, after four years of debate, why the Dems would not simply vote yes or no? After all, voting is a basic democratic principle.
Think they will declare voter disenfranchisement upon themselves?
John, you’re funny when your angry.
s
” Quick, everyone stick a red hot poker up your ass- because someone might do it to you in the future, so you might as well do it now.
”
Stupid analogy.
More correctly – it would be sticking a red hot poker up someone else’s ass, to gain immediate advantage, rather than take the chance of them sticking it up your ass sometime in the future.
And yes, it does make perfect sense.
As someone with military experience, I’m surprised that you can’t grasp this simple strategy of war.
John Cole
Actually- it would be more like sticking a red hot poker up my ass and my opponents, because I contend both sides will be hurt by this.
bg
Lets also not forget that Bush promised there was evidence we weren’t allowed to see before the war, (May we see it now?) and let Zarqawi go. *That’s* unserious.
TJ: It sounds like what you want is a tyranny of the majority. The protection of the minority is a founding principle of America and the U.S. Senate.
JPS: Al Qaida is an accepted spelling and is used by the AP. It accounts for the differing pronunciations, Al KAIda and Al KAYda.
Fledermaus
Ya know, back in the day we used to have a thoughtful and functioning political system and no one had any red hot pokers stuck up their ass.
But the times they are a changin’
Libertine
JPS…
I am thinking John wanted this thread to be about the filibuster and we have gone waaaay off the reservation (apologies to John) with out discussion on foreign policy concerns…but IMO it has been a good discussion.
I disagree that consistency isn’t an overriding concern of our foreign policy. After the 9/11 attacks, and during the war in Afghanistan, the US had broad international support in our “war on terrorism”. That is how we got countries like Pakistan to support us. We missed Osama but we did a decent job of getting Afghanistan to hold credible elections and establish a legitimate government…albeit they have not had much success curbing the poppy cultivation.
Things were going well overall until Iraq. Because of our pre-emptive attack based unsubstantiated intelligence from dubious sources we have hurt our own effort. I won’t go as far as saying we have poisoned the international waters in terms of our “war on terrorism” but we have muddied those waters. We are making it tough on the leaders of our allies with the electorate in their own countries…already in Spain and likely Italy we have lost leaders who support us.
Also we have created far more enemies in the Arab world. Contrary to the popular belief on the far right we had some decent support in the Arab world and on the Arab street after 9/11 and during the Afghan war. Support for us in the region is almost non-existent now and in some cases our actions have become a recruiting poster for the people who want to attack us.
We need to have more consistency in our foreign policy to fight our “war on terrorism”. We need to let the UN and Europe continue to pressure Iran about their nuclear program, take a much more aggressive role in getting the Palestinian/Israeli conflict resolved and try to get out of Iraq as soon as possible…and then I see many less people who would like to kill Americans and a winnable fight.
S.W. Anderson
Stormy 70 wrote: “The Dems have no serious foreign policy to put forth, so they still scare me.”
Let me get this straight. The Republicans invade the wrong country on trumped up charges or, if you accept their spin, out of a combination of paranoia and good, old-fashioned meddling, but the Democrats are scary?
Not sure where you were during the 2004 campaign, but back here on Earth, John Kerry laid out a rational, sensible, workable approach to foreign policy. Millions agreed with him, albeit not quite enough millions.
Please, the fact you weren’t in the forest, or were and failed to pay attention, doesn’t mean the tree remained upright.
Libertine
And as far as the Iraqi population goes JPS…
They are at best ambivilent towards us. Saddam is gone and the insurgency has been due to the alliance of 2 seperate entities…Al-Qaeda and disenfranchised Sunni-Iraqis. To me it is fairly obvious that the Sunni population as a whole has no love for us, or the attacks would be greatly reduced or stopped.
hilzoy
John: We Democrats aren’t that scary, actually. Feel free to switch sides any time. (I supported Wes Clark, who did have a foreign policy.)
Myself, I would rather see rule 4 of the Judiciary Committee Rules enforced again. It’s still on the books, and says that no nominee gets voted out of committee without at least one minority vote. Hatch suspended it in 2003. (If anyone is wondering why there have been few (not no) judicial filibusters in the past, it’s because minorities didn’t need them to kill an extreme nominee.)
Rule 4 beats blue slips, as far as I’m concerned: it doesn’t give as much importance to the home state Senators, who in some cases don’t deserve it, and prevents nominees from going forward only when not a single minority member will back them. Fairer, in my view.
Andrei
“OK, there were no WMDs. The fact that to a lot of people in your party…”
Oh… for the record, the last two elections, I voted Democractic for President — because I’ve always thought Dubya is basically ill-equipped mentally to be the Leader of the Free Word — and Libertarian for all other positions. I don’t agree with the Libertarian party on all issues, but given the choices these days, I’m ready to try anything other than the current Dem or GOP parties.
washerdreyer
The claim that Democrats would exercise the nuclear option is logically irrelevant, but it’s also baseless. Since the option is just as applicable to bog-standard filibusters, and the Democrats have been in the majority and had both Judges and Bills blocked by the filibuster, you’d have a hard time explaining why they didn’t use the option, other than they thought they actually had to obey Senate rules.
Kimmitt
The thing the Physics Geek fails to understand is that the Democrats, for all their manifold flaws and failures, aren’t goddamn Republicans. This is something I come up against with my folks — “Oh, they’re all the same, the Democrats would do the same thing.” The Dems sucked up the blue slip rule changes and lived with them, because those were the goddamn rules. Yes, there are numerous examples of Democrats trying to game the system. But the difference is that Democrats, by and large, believe that the system has to continue to exist.
Slartibartfast
Oh, I think a more accurate statement would be the Democrats already have done the same. This business with the “nuclear option” has already been exercised as a threat by Robert Byrd. Which is just exactly what we did, isn’t it?
And yes, it was idiotic and shameful back then just as it is now. I’m simply pointing out that the holier-than-thou front is simply unjustified.
Oberon
And let’s be serious here. Hillary Clinton will NEVER be president.
RW
Yeah, we’re overflowing with the oil…just look at the nickel a gallon gasoline prices that you folks predicted right before the election (right after Rove trotted out Bin Laden the weekend before the election).
Good lord, update the talking points or read something else besides kos.
Chris P
The differance between what Byrd did and the nuclear option was that Byrd went by the rules of the senate to modify the requirements of the fillibuster. There was a vote which was held and it was upheld.
What makes the nuclear option nuclear is that it requires ignoring the process by which the Senate normally changes it’s rules.
RW
Chris,
The senate would follow its normal process in changing the rules for the filibuster…the exact same way that happened when Byrd was for it.
No difference, except for the different ox is now being goured.
Compuglobalhypermeganet
Ever since I was first being taught about US government in high school, it struck me that filibustering is anti-democratic and should be eliminated altogether, quaint little Mr. Smith Goes to Washington fantasies aside. Why would the rules of a democracy include provisions to block majority-approved action?
Majority rules or nobody rules. If your party lost the elections, then you take your lumps until the next election. If what the other party does is bad for America, then America will have their say next election.
Protecting the country from overuse of majority power is the role of institutional checks-and-balances, not of the minority party.
DecidedFenceSitter
So Compuglobalhybermeganet, you are for a Tyrrany of the Majority? If the majority of people want something then it should happen?
Slartibartfast
Actually, Byrd short-cutted the rules in much the same way as Frist proposed. In fact, Frist’s proposal is modeled on Byrd’s actions in the late 1970s. Byrd effected de facto rule changes via precedent, and accomplished those de facto rule changes without having a two-thirds majority.
Steven
The Senate is supposed to be un-democratic. That’s its role in the legislature. It’s basic structure is undemocratic–two from each state. Most of the founders were terrified of majority rule and created a decidedly undemocratic legislative body as a counterweight to the democratic House. It’s not an accident that the Senate was given the role of checking the power of the executive branch.
Kimmitt
Slartibartfast — I’m reading up on Byrd’s actions. It looks like:
In 1977, Byrd established a precedent which favored his favored interpretation of Senate rules.
In 1979, Byrd threatened something similar to the Nuclear Option but didn’t go through with it. Was he serious, or was he playing chicken?
In 1980, he created a new type of motion which allowed him to get around precedents surrounding nominations.
With the exception of the 1979 threat, these seem like pretty small beer. Do you have any examples that are less than, say, twenty years old? I understand that Byrd is still in the Senate and that he’s being a hypocrite on the issue, but he’s just one guy, and a much more trenchant example is the blue slip rules changes during the Clinton Presidency.
I feel like you’re saying the rough equivalent of, “Well, the Democrats were in favor of slavery in 1860, so obviously they are far worse than the Republicans, who are anti-slavery in 2005.” Party leadership and beliefs change. Byrd is a holdover from a different time.
TJ Jackson
BG:
I am not sure what world you live in nor where you got your education but the Costitution defends the individual from the government not the minorityu form the majority.
Exactly where did you go to school?
If you prefer the rule of the minority I’d suggest Havana is your kind of place. Get an education before making such pathetic comments. TThey only serve to demonstrate how poorly the education system is functioning.
TJ Jackson
JPS:
Interesting points you’ve made. The Left also keeps forgetting that they said:
-We’d never win in Afghanistan.
-Saddam would employ WMD causing ten of thousands of casualities in Iraq.
-There would never be elections in Iraq.
-That sanctions would work, although we now know about the food for oil scandals.
-That Saddam was a peaceful, beloved dictator who’d change if given enough time.
-The Arab state would rise against us. Too bad it seems the arab streetis rising against their overlords.
Refreshing to see some clear thinking.
Slartibartfast
How would one have found out, other than calling the bet? How would one find out whether the Republican leadership was bluffing, other than doing the same?
Granted, although these are examples of how Byrd was in effect able to accomplish a change in the rules without an actual vote on rule change.
Comparing this to slavery is particularly inapt, though. Senate rules and human ownership: one of these things is not much like the other. If any analogous paradigm shift had occurred in Senate rules, a new way of doing business would have been the result, I’d think. That aside, I clearly was dismissive of either party making use of such tactics, hence the use of “idiotic and shameful”.
bg
TJ: You don’t think the supermajorities required for rule changes in the Senate (one of many examples) are there to protect us from the tyranny of the majority? What you’re agitating for is something like a monarchy.
PS: I did not deserve the tone of your comments. While I am restraining to not respond in kind, I find it ironic that someone espousing unAmerican positions is telling me to go to Cuba.
bg
Here’s some more food for thought: Tocqueville thought the two main dangers that threaten the existence of democracies are (1) “the subjection of the legislative power to the will of the electoral body,” and (2) “concentration of all other powers of government into the hands of the legislative power.”
He also thought the first form of tyranny was avoided by the introduction of a bicameral legislature was formed and the Senate, while still responsible to the people, has much more independence from popular whims.
It seems to me like you’re clearly agitating for number 1.
Compuglobalhypermeganet
So Compuglobalhybermeganet, you are for a Tyrrany of the Majority? If the majority of people want something then it should happen?
It beats the tyranny of the minority, which partisan filibusters provide. Are you seriously arguing that elections mean nothing and that the people express no will when they vote?
bg
I don’t want to speak for DFS, but my response (since TJ and I are debating the same issue), is that although the majority has more power it is not absolute.
halffasthero
Damn, John, I like how you think. I have to start quoting you more often.
(finally had time tochime in in this post)
This blog has the best exchanges I have read. Makes for great reading and MAYBE everyone might come to some semblence of appreciating both sides.
Kimmitt
That aside, I clearly was dismissive of either party making use of such tactics, hence the use of “idiotic and shameful”.
Sure, but what’s the point of bringing up things that Democrats did before I attended kindergarten?
Slartibartfast
Wow, that’s a good point. Note to self: never bring up history that goes further back than my oldest shirt.
M. Simon
Andrei,
What was Saddam keeping all that yellow cake for? Coloring glass?
And those explosives at Quaqua, good for nuclear weapons triggers? Metal forming?
And all the weapons he was known to have previously that were no longer in inventory. What ya suppose happened? He destroyed them and forgot to tell any one?
meal
http://solutions.business-web-site.net/lcif/ canceledequipmentknuckles
beckon
http://cash.home-loans-inc.com/wvchco/ john appearcrossedhalls
unzipperped
destroyinggreetednod