Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 52

Thread: KABOOM

  1. #16
    self admitted prolifer kirinke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Province
    To the left of reality. Behind reason. Right next to the backside of beyond.
    Oratio
    7,506

    Ignore User
    When the shoe is on the other foot and they're in the minority, they're gonna be the ones whining about it while the republicans gleefully stomp all over them.

    Idiots.

    I'm not going to feel sorry for them one little bit. They did it to themselves.
    Last edited by kirinke; November 22nd, 2013 at 02:35 AM.
    Madness does not always howl. Sometimes, it is the quiet voice at the end of the day saying, "Hey, is there room in your head for one more?"

    I is before E except after C, then it's chaos man, mass chaos! Letters coming together into words, but then you go English and they put U's in places that just shouldn't go there... AHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

    My sanity left town along time ago and didn't leave a forwarding address. It's not missed.

 

  • #17
    self admitted prolifer kirinke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Province
    To the left of reality. Behind reason. Right next to the backside of beyond.
    Oratio
    7,506

    Ignore User
    Yeah, but now they don't have it at all, so they'll whine, whine whine when they're in the minority.
    Madness does not always howl. Sometimes, it is the quiet voice at the end of the day saying, "Hey, is there room in your head for one more?"

    I is before E except after C, then it's chaos man, mass chaos! Letters coming together into words, but then you go English and they put U's in places that just shouldn't go there... AHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

    My sanity left town along time ago and didn't leave a forwarding address. It's not missed.

  • #18
    Religipster Enkhidu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Province
    Dayton
    Oratio
    7,099

    Ignore User
    What's the odds that they reverse it on the way out?

  • #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Enkhidu View Post
    What's the odds that they reverse it on the way out?

    Ahhhh, yet another example of how my avataring proves prescient: yours is an apt illustration of your most recent post.



    I suspect that Democrats will find that nuking the filibuster stinks, once they're the ones left holding the pooper-scooper (and it's only a matter of time). Restoring the filibuster prior to their losing the majority won't work: if Democrats reverse themselves on their way out, Republicans can simply tank it again once they take the majority.

  • #20
    pug cat! the Jester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Province
    In the snow
    Oratio
    8,254

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Ovinomancer View Post
    Let's not forget that the Republicans threatened to do this 8 years ago, and the same Dems lauding the move today screamed the same things the 'Pubs screamed then. More proof that the only real difference between the two parties are the cronies that benefit from them.
    Let's also not forget that the move was averted in 2005 by a bipartisan deal only to filibuster nominees in exceptional circumstances.

    Don't kid yourself; the GOP did not honor that deal, any more than they've shown any inclination to honor deals that Boehner works out with the Dems in the house.

    Is this a good move in the long run? Probably not. But was it entirely predictable and almost inevitable, given the bad faith that the Republicans have shown on nominees? Absolutely. If they didn't want this to happen, then they should have stuck to the deal they made to prevent it instead of acting like Germany towards their pre-war treaty with Belgium ("just a scrap of paper").

    Let's hope this enables the Senate to actually fill all those empty seats on judicial benches. The holdup over petty politicking is ridiculous and has been going on for decades; enough is enough. Keep behaving badly despite promises to the contrary, and sooner or later the other guy stops believing your bullshit.
    Spoiler Alert!

  • #21
    guyjin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Province
    The land between two rivers
    Oratio
    7,525

    Ignore User

    Re: KABOOM

    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Halo View Post
    Ahhhh, yet another example of how my avataring proves prescient: yours is an apt illustration of your most recent post.



    I suspect that Democrats will find that nuking the filibuster stinks, once they're the ones left holding the pooper-scooper (and it's only a matter of time). Restoring the filibuster prior to their losing the majority won't work: if Democrats reverse themselves on their way out, Republicans can simply tank it again once they take the majority.
    I think the dems are betting, given the demographic doom the GOP is facing and doing nothing about, that they won't have to worry about it for a long time.

  • #22
    Quote Originally Posted by guyjin View Post
    I think the dems are betting, given the demographic doom the GOP is facing and doing nothing about, that they won't have to worry about it for a long time.

    Or, alternatively, they could be betting that if a republican party capable of competing in national elections emerges it will be relatively reasonable. An alliance of current conservative democrats and the not completely batshit wing of the GOP, for example.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ovinomancer View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member.
    Fine, I'll say it because it's obvious -- VK is 100% right

  • #23
    I would much rather have the wingnuts hold the obstructionist power versus the legislative power: this seems self evident. It is a little sad.

  • #24
    I'm just hoping Obama has the intestinal fortitude to flood the judiciary with pinko liberal bastards.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ovinomancer View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member.
    Fine, I'll say it because it's obvious -- VK is 100% right

  • #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Gazebo View Post
    I would much rather have the wingnuts hold the obstructionist power versus the legislative power: this seems self evident. It is a little sad.
    Problem with that is John Q Public has an effective political memory of less than two years. If the obstructionists fuck the mandate hard enough, the party in power is seen as a failure and voted out.... handing power to the obstructionist wingnuts you don't want in power in the first place.

    Goes for both parties, neither one suddenly becomes pure and sane once in power.
    Quote Originally Posted by nail bunny View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member.
    I believe the hammer locking back is PWD's trigger warning.

  • #26
    Quote Originally Posted by PWD View Post
    Problem with that is John Q Public has an effective political memory of less than two years. If the obstructionists fuck the mandate hard enough, the party in power is seen as a failure and voted out.... handing power to the obstructionist wingnuts you don't want in power in the first place.

    Goes for both parties, neither one suddenly becomes pure and sane once in power.
    Yes, that is why it is important to have a check for the balance.

  • #27
    Pony Up! Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Province
    The Paddock
    Oratio
    28,093

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by the Jester View Post
    Let's also not forget that the move was averted in 2005 by a bipartisan deal only to filibuster nominees in exceptional circumstances.

    Don't kid yourself; the GOP did not honor that deal, any more than they've shown any inclination to honor deals that Boehner works out with the Dems in the house.
    Don't kid yourself, either. The only 'deals' offered have been 'our way or the highway'. The recent trend in obstructionist fillibusters has increased with Democratic refusal to allow Republicans a seat at the table. This doesn't excuse it, but when viewed properly, it is easy to understand why Republicans are doing this.

    Now, if they were getting concessions, and they still did it, you'd have a strong point.

    Is this a good move in the long run? Probably not. But was it entirely predictable and almost inevitable, given the bad faith that the Republicans have shown on nominees? Absolutely. If they didn't want this to happen, then they should have stuck to the deal they made to prevent it instead of acting like Germany towards their pre-war treaty with Belgium ("just a scrap of paper").
    And stand by while Reid systemically shuts them out? It's hard to complain about bad parlimentary behavior when the minority is using its lesser power to confront the majority's abuse of it's much more powerful abilities. All this has done is increase the power of the party in majority, which should be an obvious bad thing to everyone except the most near-sighted partisan.

    Are Republicans good guys here? Fuck no. I disagree with the filibuster tactic. But it's understandable given the abuse the Democrats are performing. Reid is even stacking the amendment decks with pointless and trivial amendment requests to ensure that no Republican amendment can even be brought to the floor for discussion. And that's when he holds the majority.

    The upshot of this move will be to increase partisan behavior on both sides. Expect as much parlimentary obstruction as possible in the future.

    Let's hope this enables the Senate to actually fill all those empty seats on judicial benches. The holdup over petty politicking is ridiculous and has been going on for decades; enough is enough. Keep behaving badly despite promises to the contrary, and sooner or later the other guy stops believing your bullshit.
    According to independant voices, it's not like there's much for these appointees to do right now. It certainly isn't critical or even necessary to fill those slots at the moment, which makes this move by the Dems even more odd-- there's little need to blow things up over something like those three bench seats.

  • #28
    Pony Up! Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Province
    The Paddock
    Oratio
    28,093

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Vermicious Knid View Post
    Or, alternatively, they could be betting that if a republican party capable of competing in national elections emerges it will be relatively reasonable. An alliance of current conservative democrats and the not completely batshit wing of the GOP, for example.
    That could only happen if both parties fell apart in the next few months and a centrist party reformed. Of course, those are the career players that would just make sure that their collective pool of cronies are well taken care of and business would be as usual. The 'center' these days is just the guys that have the most to gain from keeping the current system humming.

  • #29
    Just listened to a panel discussion on CNN (god they are going downhill fast). The entire panel agreed that this move is for the best for both parties. The thought process was that the elections would have more consequence and people would be more careful as they are voting.

    I'm not sure that the discretion of the populace will ever effectively balance power over the codification of a well written check. This seems absurd to me. How many people vote for the betterment of their constituency over the betterment of the country? Even if that weren't a pertainate question, how does a voter meaningfully see the scope of the election as a modifier to their potential vote? It all seems backwards to me.
    Last edited by Wild Gazebo; November 22nd, 2013 at 11:07 PM. Reason: clarity

  • #30
    Pony Up! Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Province
    The Paddock
    Oratio
    28,093

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Gazebo View Post
    Just listened to a panel discussion on CNN (god they are going downhill fast). The entire panel agreed that this move is for the best for both parties. The thought process was that the elections would have more consequence and people would be more careful as they are voting.

    I'm not sure that the discretion of the populace will ever effectively balance power over the codification of a well written check. This seems absurd to me. How many people vote for the betterment of their constituency over the betterment of the country? Even if that weren't a pertainate question, how does a voter meaningfully see the scope of the election as a modifier to their potential vote? It all seems backwards to me.
    Add to it that elections are opaque until complete (and often even then). With that, how could you, as a voter, ever exercise judicial voting to ensure balance? CNN has become ridiculous, especially if they're staffing panels on such a controversial topic without anyone to disagree with the propaganda line.

  • Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

    Tags for this Thread

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •