Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Things we'd be talking about if the forum wasn't deadFollow

#252 Feb 12 2015 at 8:33 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
House Republicans are demanding that McConnell abolish the filibuster for spending bills so they can pass their DHS funding legislation

So it can be vetoed 35 seconds later? WTF?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#253 Feb 13 2015 at 8:27 AM Rating: Good
******
49,053 posts
What better place to fulfill your platform of reduced government powers with than getting rid of a tool you don't need anymore and might be used against you in the future?

Edited, Feb 13th 2015 9:28am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#254 Feb 13 2015 at 9:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smasharoo wrote:
So it can be vetoed 35 seconds later? WTF?

Hey, I didn't say that they were SMART in demanding it...

Yes, eliminating the filibuster would be one of the dumber things McConnell could do but I suspect that, with his Methuselah-many years in the Senate, he already knows that.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#255 Feb 13 2015 at 10:19 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
Isn't McConnell the filibuster master.

Not very nice to ask him to give up his most effective tool.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#256 Feb 13 2015 at 2:51 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
Not very nice to ask him to give up his most effective tool.

Wouldn't that be Ted Cruz? I mean, leaving aside the effectiveness part.

Hey-o!
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#257 Feb 13 2015 at 3:49 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Not very nice to ask him to give up his most effective tool.

Wouldn't that be Ted Cruz? I mean, leaving aside the effectiveness part.

Hey-o!

Yeah, honestly I think I got them mixed up...or unintentionally morphed into a single entity.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#258 Feb 13 2015 at 7:49 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,649 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Except it's only protected speech if it's your flag.

No, it's protected speech either way. That doesn't shield you from responsibility for stealing the flag or destroying someone else's property of course but the anti-desecration laws that have been repeatedly found to be unconstitutional don't suddenly become valid that way.


First off, I think we're just quibbling over the term "protected". Protected speech doesn't mean that you can break other laws to do it. Which is relevant in this case, and the point I was making. Whether it's free speech or not is irrelevant when the action you are performing if said speech involves damage to property that is not privately owned by you. I also think that it's questionable as to whether this was "speech" at all. Some speech takes the form of vandalism, but not all vandalism is speech.

Additionally, in the case of flag desecration laws, they are unconstitutional only within this private property context. You are free to burn your own flag as a method of protest, but if you burn someone else's flag, you may come under additional charges beyond just destruction of property (I suppose depending on whatever applicable laws may exist in the state/city/whatever you're in).

For reference, United States V. Eichman says the following:

Quote:
Today's decision does not affect the extent to which the Government's interest in protecting publicly owned flags might justify special measures on their behalf. See Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405, 408-409 (1974); cf. Johnson, supra, at 412-413, n. 8.


Spence v. Washington states the following:

Quote:
A number of factors are important in the instant case. First, this was a privately owned flag. In a technical property sense, it was not the property of any government. [p409] We have no doubt that the State or National Governments constitutionally may forbid anyone from mishandling in any manner a flag that is public property. But this is a different case.


To be fair, I'm not willing to research this to the extent of discovering if anyone has ever been charged and convicted of flag desecration of a public flag via some relevant statute in say the last 30 years or so, but my admittedly brief look see hasn't turned up a case where charging someone under that condition was found to be unconstitutional. Take from that what you will.

I'll also point out that none of this means I'm recommending throwing the book at the kid.

Edited, Feb 13th 2015 6:28pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#259 Feb 13 2015 at 7:56 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,649 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Yes, eliminating the filibuster would be one of the dumber things McConnellReid could do but I suspect that, with his Methuselah-many years in the Senate, he already knows that.


FTFY
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#260 Feb 13 2015 at 8:05 PM Rating: Good
******
49,053 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'll also point out that none of this means I'm recommending throwing the book at the kid.
His classmates would have that covered.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#261 Feb 13 2015 at 8:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Yes, eliminating the filibuster would be one of the dumber things McConnellReid could do but I suspect that, with his Methuselah-many years in the Senate, he already knows that.
FTFY

Well, Reid can't eliminate the filibuster at the moment so I'm not sure what you "fixed".

Although, yes, eliminating it during his tenure would have been dumb since he still wouldn't have gotten Senate legislation past the House. Eliminating it for confirming appointments wasn't dumb since the Senate could act alone.

McConnell eliminating it would be stupid since, if he can't reach 60 votes, he's obviously not going to hit 67 votes to override a veto and he knows the GOP grasp on Senate control is likely very time limited.

Edited, Feb 13th 2015 8:16pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#262 Feb 13 2015 at 8:16 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,649 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'll also point out that none of this means I'm recommending throwing the book at the kid.
His classmates would have that covered.


Needs a /rimshot
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#263 Feb 13 2015 at 8:25 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,649 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Yes, eliminating the filibuster would be one of the dumber things McConnellReid could do but I suspect that, with his Methuselah-many years in the Senate, he already knows that.
FTFY

Well, Reid can't eliminate the filibuster at the moment so I'm not sure what you "fixed".


Um... Really?

Quote:
Although, yes, eliminating it during his tenure would have been dumb since he still wouldn't have gotten Senate legislation past the House. Eliminating it for confirming appointments wasn't dumb since the Senate could act alone.


If you're only looking at this from an extremely short term point of view, I suppose you have a point. The act of eliminating it for anything at all establishes that it can be eliminated. Period. What you did it for really doesn't matter. The point is that Reid established that precedent.

Quote:
McConnell eliminating it would be stupid since, if he can't reach 60 votes, he's obviously not going to hit 67 votes to override a veto and he knows the GOP grasp on Senate control is likely very time limited.


Out of the list of reasons why it would be stupid, that's very very far down the list. What makes it "dumb" is that the same lack of check against simple majority can be used against you in the future. Which is precisely why Reid was dumb to do it last session for the ultimately silly purpose of pushing a few nominations through. Hugely damaging effect on our system of government for a very short term benefit to his party. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.

Way to miss the forest for one very very small tree though.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#264 Feb 13 2015 at 8:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Um... Really?

Really.

Quote:
If you're only looking at this from an extremely short term point of view, I suppose you have a point. The act of eliminating it for anything at all establishes that it can be eliminated. Period.

Well, duh. Like spilling some water out of a glass establishes that water can be spilled out of a glass. Before Reid eliminated the filibuster for most confirmations, exactly 100% of people interested in the topic knew that the filibuster could be eliminated. Afterwards, that number jumped to 100%.

Quote:
Out of the list of reasons why it would be stupid, that's very very far down the list.

No, it's number one on the list. You cute little political virgin, you.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#265 Feb 13 2015 at 8:49 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts

What do they suspend students for fighting these days? A week?
10 days seems ludicrous for petty vandalism. Most schools struggle to even fit in all the subject matter they intend to cover in the amount of school days alotted.
Why not just give him 5 days detention?
____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#266 Feb 13 2015 at 8:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Why do you hate America?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#267 Feb 13 2015 at 8:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,119 posts
I have to admit, I haven't been paying attention. How did these little scamps end up throwing a bunch of crap out of the window, anyway?
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#268 Feb 13 2015 at 8:55 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,707 posts
Samira wrote:
I have to admit, I haven't been paying attention. How did these little scamps end up throwing a bunch of crap out of the window, anyway?


I'd imagine they picked up some items. and throw them out a window after opening it.

I don't know what you remember about school, but things aren't all that organized all the time. I had plenty of classes where there was free time that we were able to walk around the classroom and visit with friends.

Edit:
What Joph said...

Edited, Feb 13th 2015 10:05pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#269 Feb 13 2015 at 8:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
...and throw them out the window?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#270 Feb 13 2015 at 9:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,119 posts
DEFENESTRATE HIM!
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#271 Feb 13 2015 at 9:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,119 posts
But anyway, not being supervised by Scrooge isn't exactly next door to throwing the classroom fixtures out of windows. I just did a quick search and found lots of hits along the lines of "student throws flag out of classroom window" but nothing saying what led up to it. Just curious, really.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#272 Feb 13 2015 at 9:14 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,707 posts
Samira wrote:
But anyway, not being supervised by Scrooge isn't exactly next door to throwing the classroom fixtures out of windows. I just did a quick search and found lots of hits along the lines of "student throws flag out of classroom window" but nothing saying what led up to it. Just curious, really.


My Junior year of high school I had a few English courses that were pretty open. We just got to do pretty much anything we wanted. In Junior High half of our English classes were relative free time for project work, and when it was group projects we were allowed to move around the class and sit in groups, etc. Sometimes up along the counters on the wall where the windows were, the teachers thought nothing of it. During the nicer days the windows would be open. Most of them had no screens.

I haven't seen any pictures of the flag in question, but I can't imagine it was one of the 7 foot pole flags. Most of our class rooms had flags on maybe 2 foot or 3 foot dowels?
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#273 Feb 13 2015 at 9:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,119 posts
I don't know, that's the sort of detail that's missing from every report I've seen. Was he hanging out with friends being silly and stupid? Did he shout "Take that, running dog imperialists"? Were they drunk? We don't know!
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#274 Feb 13 2015 at 9:24 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,707 posts
Samira wrote:
I don't know, that's the sort of detail that's missing from every report I've seen. Was he hanging out with friends being silly and stupid? Did he shout "Take that, running dog imperialists"? Were they drunk? We don't know!


I think the article linked says he and a group of students were just tossing things out the window (erasers, etc.) and he decided to go one step further and toss the flag.

So I assume they were just hanging out with friends and being stupid, tossing things out the window.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#275 Feb 13 2015 at 9:24 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
running dog imperialist

My Navajo name, coincidentally.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#276 Feb 14 2015 at 9:37 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,481 posts
TirithRR wrote:
Samira wrote:
But anyway, not being supervised by Scrooge isn't exactly next door to throwing the classroom fixtures out of windows. I just did a quick search and found lots of hits along the lines of "student throws flag out of classroom window" but nothing saying what led up to it. Just curious, really.


My Junior year of high school I had a few English courses that were pretty open. We just got to do pretty much anything we wanted. In Junior High half of our English classes were relative free time for project work, and when it was group projects we were allowed to move around the class and sit in groups, etc. Sometimes up along the counters on the wall where the windows were, the teachers thought nothing of it. During the nicer days the windows would be open. Most of them had no screens.

I haven't seen any pictures of the flag in question, but I can't imagine it was one of the 7 foot pole flags. Most of our class rooms had flags on maybe 2 foot or 3 foot dowels?

My freshman year our English teacher was out almost the whole year for maternity leave and we had a parade of substitutes coming and going. This was one of the rougher classes, too; someone would be arguing with the substitute teacher in the front of the class, and in the back kids were rolling blunts and blowing lines. Tying kids' bookbags to the venetian blind cords and swinging them out the 2nd floor windows. Locking the teacher outside and throwing chairs into the courtyard.

And people wonder why I tried to blow the place up.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#277 Feb 16 2015 at 8:34 AM Rating: Good
******
49,053 posts
I'm glad my schools weren't inspired by Mad Max.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#278 Feb 17 2015 at 7:29 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,131 posts
So, it looks like President Obama's immigration action is temporarily blocked. I wonder if this will affect the potential shutdown over DHS?
#279 Feb 17 2015 at 7:46 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
Almalieque wrote:
So, it looks like President Obama's immigration action is temporarily blocked. I wonder if this will affect the potential shutdown over DHS?

Taking a bullet for Boehner?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#280 Feb 17 2015 at 8:36 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
So, it looks like President Obama's immigration action is temporarily blocked. I wonder if this will affect the potential shutdown over DHS?

Probably not. The side wanting to defund will say it's necessary in case liberal activist judges overturn the order. The side wanting the funding will say that there's no reason not to fund since either the actions will prove legal (and thus deserve funding) or they won't (and thus don't need riders excluding funding).
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#281 Feb 17 2015 at 5:39 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,649 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
If you're only looking at this from an extremely short term point of view, I suppose you have a point. The act of eliminating it for anything at all establishes that it can be eliminated. Period.

Well, duh. Like spilling some water out of a glass establishes that water can be spilled out of a glass. Before Reid eliminated the filibuster for most confirmations, exactly 100% of people interested in the topic knew that the filibuster could be eliminated. Afterwards, that number jumped to 100%.


And yet, every single time the subject of actually doing it came up, the reason not to was "if we do this, we establish the precedent of doing this, and it'll be used against us". This was precisely why the GOP didn't eliminate the filibuster for appointments 10 years ago. The exact freaking argument. No one (other than you apparently) is confused about how Reid doing this to get a few appointments through affects the filibuster as a whole.

What's bizarre is that you're totally willing to slam the GOP for something they *might* do, when your own party already did it. Unless you just don't understand that the distinction between eliminating the filibuster for appointments and eliminating it for any other kind of vote in the Senate is legally irrelevant. The same process exists for both. It's only a PR distinction to say "we're not going to use it for appointments, but we'll still use it for budgets and laws".

Reid broke the filibuster. The least you could do is accept that fact.

Quote:
Quote:
Out of the list of reasons why it would be stupid, that's very very far down the list.

No, it's number one on the list. You cute little political virgin, you.


Only if you are exceptionally naive and have no ability to look down the road at all. What a given filibuster is used for is irrelevant next to whether it's accepted practice by both parties and therefore not violated. Once one party says "Nah. We'll just ignore it when we want", that trust is broken. That's what was stupid.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#282 Feb 17 2015 at 6:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I didn't "slam" the GOP for potentially ending the filibuster at all. Hell, McConnell can do so tomorrow with my blessing. I said it would be a dumb decision completely for political reasons and thus it was dumb for House Republicans to demand it (but that I assumed McConnell was smarter than that). I get that you're all worked up and stuff but try reading for content instead of for misunderstood things to whine about.
Quote:
Unless you just don't understand that the distinction between eliminating the filibuster for appointments and eliminating it for any other kind of vote in the Senate is legally irrelevant.

"Legally irrelevant"? Are you just talking to sound like you know something now? There's no "legal relevance" to the filibuster at all. It's not law, it's a Senate rule. If McConnell wants to set a rule saying filibusters will only be used for SCotUS appointments and he has the votes to pass the rule change, he can do it. If he wants a 75 vote rule to end debate on a bill and he has the votes to pass it, he can. If he wants to only filibuster Senators asking for bathroom breaks and he has the votes to pass the rule change, he can. There's no "legal relevance" to the filibuster -- it's just internal rules the chamber sets up for how it'll operate. Do you seriously have no idea how the Senate rules work? I mean, if you don't that's fine I guess since most people probably don't but then most people don't embarrass themselves by saying it's "legally irrelevant" either.

Edited, Feb 17th 2015 6:10pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#283 Feb 18 2015 at 8:33 AM Rating: Good
******
49,053 posts
gbaji wrote:
Once one party says "Nah. We'll just ignore it when we want", that trust is broken. That's what was stupid.
Alabama Supreme Court?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#284 Feb 18 2015 at 10:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,119 posts
Senator John Cornyn wants concealed weapons to be portable to places where they're currently illegal.

Because it's okay to impose your morality across state lines, as long as you're not a **** liberal.

Edit: holy ****, I screwed that dog right and proper.

Edit: also, d**n and h**l are filtered but "screwed the dog" is not. Yay!


Edited, Feb 18th 2015 8:08am by Samira
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#285 Feb 18 2015 at 10:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,119 posts
Also: Bill Clinton is now ranked 8th best President, ahead of Reagan (11th). Obama is way down at the bottom, in the silty company of Pierce, Buchanan and Andrew Johnson.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#286 Feb 18 2015 at 10:10 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
So much for "state's rights", eh?

This, incidentally, is the same goal as the health insurance solution of "sell insurance across state lines" -- what it really means is "allow the states with the least amount of insurance regulation to set the bar for the entire nation"
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#287 Feb 18 2015 at 10:30 AM Rating: Good
******
49,053 posts
State's rights are a liberal scam.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#288 Feb 18 2015 at 11:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Abraham Lincoln was a Republican and the Civil War was all about state's rights. So obviously liberal Democrats are the ones most interested in state's rights.

Edited, Feb 18th 2015 11:02am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#289 Feb 18 2015 at 1:42 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
Civil War

That's War of Northern Aggression to the likes of you, yankee.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#290 Feb 18 2015 at 2:00 PM Rating: Good
******
49,053 posts
South would have totally won if the North just sold them more bullets.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#291 Feb 18 2015 at 7:31 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,649 posts
Samira wrote:
Senator John Cornyn wants concealed weapons to be portable to places where they're currently illegal.

Because it's okay to impose your morality across state lines, as long as you're not a **** liberal.


Lol. It's a brilliant play on the precedent set with same se.x marriage. Kinda funny really. Doubly so given NY is the state complaining.


You do see the comparison, right? I mean, if a concealed carry permit is granted in Michigan, that permit ought to be respected in New York. Otherwise... Shenanigans!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#292 Feb 18 2015 at 7:42 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,649 posts
And while I'm at it:

Jophiel wrote:
I didn't "slam" the GOP for potentially ending the filibuster at all.


What you said was:

Jophiel wrote:
Yes, eliminating the filibuster would be one of the dumber things McConnell could do but I suspect that, with his Methuselah-many years in the Senate, he already knows that.


So maybe not a "slam", but you defended the action Reid actually took, while calling the same action "dumb" if McConnell did it. Which I found kinda strange.

Quote:
I said it would be a dumb decision completely for political reasons and thus it was dumb for House Republicans to demand it (but that I assumed McConnell was smarter than that).


And? It was dumb when Reid did it. I agree it would be dumb, I just find it funny that you seem unable to admit it was just as dumb when your own party actually did the thing you're saying would be dumb if the GOP did it.


Quote:
"Legally irrelevant"?


Yes. Legally irrelevant. Is there like an echo in here?

Quote:
There's no "legal relevance" to the filibuster at all. It's not law, it's a Senate rule.


Uh. Yeah. That's why I spent half of the post you were responding to explaining this very thing, and how it's really just an outgrowth of a gentleman's agreement to keep those rules in place. Why would you think otherwise? I was saying that there's nothing legally binding to prevent further erosion of the filibuster rule. What kept it from being broken was an agreement by both parties not to break it.

That's an agreement that has been broken by Reid.

Quote:
Do you seriously have no idea how the Senate rules work?


Um... Maybe actually read my post next time?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#293 Feb 18 2015 at 7:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
So maybe not a "slam", but you defended the action Reid actually took, while calling the same action "dumb" if McConnell did it. Which I found kinda strange.

Because you're illiterate? I mean, the same thread also says:
I previously wrote:
Although, yes, eliminating it during his tenure would have been dumb since he still wouldn't have gotten Senate legislation past the House. Eliminating it for confirming appointments wasn't dumb since the Senate could act alone.

Is that really hard to understand? Reid's choice won him some political fights. You can have your own opinions on whether or not it was worth it, but you can't deny the simple fact that Reid's change got him results. McConnell changing the filibuster rules on legislation would win him absolutely nothing since Obama would just veto the same legislation. Plus, should Democrats retake the Senate in 2016, he'd be kind of stuck.

I understand that you see everything as a partisan gotcha but this is just basic logic here. Reid's actions got him gains, McConnell's would get him zero gains. Thus, it would be dumb for McConnell to take the House GOP's bait and change the rules. It was not "just as dumb" for Reid to do the same (plus, there's the basic fact that filibustering legislation is more useful overall and the calculus on who'll have the White House in 2017 but we'll save that until you're ready for the Remedial Politics 102 class)
Quote:
I just find it funny that you seem unable to admit it was just as dumb when your own party actually did the thing you're saying would be dumb if the GOP did it.

Probably because I keep abreast on what's happening in Washington, I guess.

Edited, Feb 18th 2015 7:51pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#294 Feb 18 2015 at 8:20 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,649 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So maybe not a "slam", but you defended the action Reid actually took, while calling the same action "dumb" if McConnell did it. Which I found kinda strange.

Because you're illiterate? I mean, the same thread also says:
I previously wrote:
Although, yes, eliminating it during his tenure would have been dumb since he still wouldn't have gotten Senate legislation past the House. Eliminating it for confirming appointments wasn't dumb since the Senate could act alone.


And the same thread also says:

Me previously wrote:
If you're only looking at this from an extremely short term point of view, I suppose you have a point. The act of eliminating it for anything at all establishes that it can be eliminated. Period. What you did it for really doesn't matter. The point is that Reid established that precedent.


Are you illiterate? The change made and precedent set is far more broad reaching than the handful of appointments that were gained. Reid acted stupidly for an incredibly short term gain.

Quote:
Is that really hard to understand? Reid's choice won him some political fights. You can have your own opinions on whether or not it was worth it, but you can't deny the simple fact that Reid's change got him results. McConnell changing the filibuster rules on legislation would win him absolutely nothing since Obama would just veto the same legislation. Plus, should Democrats retake the Senate in 2016, he'd be kind of stuck.


Again, as I stated earlier, you're missing the forest for one very small tree.

I'm not disagreeing that it would be dumb for McConnell to change the filibuster rules. My point is that it was also dumb when Reid did it. The dumbness is not changed because he won some incredibly minor political battles. The dumbness of what he did so completely overshadows that benefit. It's like saying that it would be dumb to hit yourself in the head with a hammer unless there was a fly on the side of your head that you'd kill in the process. Um... It's still really really really dumb.

Quote:
Reid's actions got him gains, McConnell's would get him zero gains.


Reid's gains didn't come close to making up for the cost though. That's the point you seem to be missing.


Quote:
It was not "just as dumb" for Reid to do the same...


Um... Ok. I'll grant that there was some incredibly tiny fraction less dumb when Reid did it. But still dumb. Really really dumb. Your inability to acknowledge this is what I find amusing. Is it really so hard to just say "Yeah. Reid should not have done that, because the appointments gained don't nearly make up for the precedent he set by doing that". Really? It was a bad idea, taken for a really bad reason.


I'll also point out (again) that we're comparing a hypothetical on one side against an actual decision that was made on the other. McConnell is not going to change the filibuster rules, even if a couple of house Republicans make headlines for themselves by asking for it. He's not going to do so for two reasons:

1. It would set an even worse precedent than that set by Reid, effectively taking the next step in the slippery slope, and losing the high ground on the issue.

2. It would just result in a presidential veto. Which is kind of a wash given that there's political value in forcing the president to veto it, but there's just as much value in forcing the Dems to filibuster. So... Not really much of a point actually.


Reason number 1 is about 100,000 times more important than reason 2 for the GOP. Even if the GOP held the white house right now, he still wouldn't change the rules. Because the whole issue with filibusters and vetoes is about public perception and support. The reason the Dems changed the rules is because the public was largely behind the GOP on the issues (and appointments) they filibustered. The Dems failed to bring public opinion to bear to force the GOP to relent, and thus resorted to changing the rules to get what they wanted in the face of public opinion (sounds like a pattern the left has fallen into).

The GOP has no need to change the rules because we've largely got public support on our side. When we pass something and the Dems filibuster it, we get to go to the public and say that it's the Dems preventing something from being passed, and this actually will hurt the Dems more than the GOP (kinda like the whole shutdown thing your party tried). That's the key issue here. Those tools work when the public supports them. They exist largely because 100% of issues and positions held by the voters can never align perfectly with political parties. So just because the public voted in a majority to one party or the other does not mean that the public agrees with every platform position of that party. The opposing party can then use filibuster and/or veto to prevent those unpopular things from passing and can do so without harming their own political prospects. If they use it to block stuff the public wants, then it hurts them politically. If they use it to block stuff the public does not want, it helps them.


This is why the GOP doesn't need to change or break the rules, but your party does. The Dem agenda has been on the wrong side of public support for at least the last 15 years. And the more your guys manipulate rules in order to get what you want even when the public opposes it, the worse it'll get.

Edited, Feb 18th 2015 6:23pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#295 Feb 18 2015 at 8:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Are you illiterate? The change made and precedent set is far more broad reaching than the handful of appointments that were gained. Reid acted stupidly for an incredibly short term gain.

First off, I again LOVE it when you try to use the same line on me. Absolutely darling. Lets me know I got under your skin Smiley: smile

Secondly, I disagree with your assessment. I think you are, in fact, all sorts of wrong. But it's an opinion and you're welcome to have it regardless of my my valuation of it. Despite all that, we again return to the fact that Reid got results, McConnell would not. I understand that what you really want is to whine about Reid but I guess I'm not all that interested in it.

You realize, of course, that I'm opposed to the procedural filibuster today same as I was a year ago, same as I was five years ago, right? I mean, if McConnell wanted to end it tomorrow, I'd tell him to go for it. I understand its usefulness as a political tool but that's all it is. It's not a keystone of governance; it wasn't part of the early Congress and if we really "needed" it, then you should be on the GOP to amend the Constitution to say that 51% votes are needed for control of the Senate but 60% votes are needed to pass legislation. As it stands, requiring 60% to pass anything (as has been the custom these past years) is a subversion of how the government was actually meant to be run. But if you're that hot to trot about it, let's engrave it into stone rather than whining and throwing a fit about "gentlemen's agreements".

Edited, Feb 18th 2015 10:29pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#296 Feb 18 2015 at 8:42 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,649 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Despite all that, we again return to the fact that Reid got results...


Yeah. He lost the Senate. There's a political consequence for bending/breaking the rules to get around the public will. As I said earlier, this has become a pattern on the Left. Obamacare. Budget showdowns/shutdowns. And appointments. In each case, when public outrage over GOP opposition didn't materialize and force the GOP to give in, they just changed the rules in order to get what they wanted anyway.

There is a public component to these tools. Somewhere along the line it seems as though the Dems have gotten so full of themselves that they've forgotten this.

Quote:
I understand that what you really want is to whine about Reid...


If that's really what you think, then you're totally missing the point I was making. Wow.

____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#297 Feb 18 2015 at 8:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Yeah. He lost the Senate.

Which had zero to do with filibuster rules.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#298 Feb 18 2015 at 10:48 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,090 posts
Is this thread about Battletoads yet?
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#299 Feb 19 2015 at 12:30 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
29,306 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Is this thread about Battletoads yet?
GameStop still hasn't gotten in that copy of Battletoads that I pre-ordered. Smiley: frown
#300 Feb 19 2015 at 2:49 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,131 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Yeah. He lost the Senate.
I love how losing only matters when a Democrat loses, but not Republicans. After losing the Senate, in a historic low turn out for a mid-term, Democrats are expected to stand by and follow the wills of the people. The people have spoken! Yet, that didn't apply in 2012 when Romney lost.
#301 Feb 19 2015 at 5:07 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,313 posts
gbaji wrote:
Samira wrote:
Senator John Cornyn wants concealed weapons to be portable to places where they're currently illegal.

Because it's okay to impose your morality across state lines, as long as you're not a **** liberal.


Lol. It's a brilliant play on the precedent set with same se.x marriage. Kinda funny really. Doubly so given NY is the state complaining.


You do see the comparison, right? I mean, if a concealed carry permit is granted in Michigan, that permit ought to be respected in New York. Otherwise... Shenanigans!
Cause both lead to death for innocent bystanders, right?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 59 All times are in CDT
Bijou, Jophiel, lolgaxe, someproteinguy, Anonymous Guests (55)