Oh, and "arcane" is not a synonym for "bad"

Neither is "fat", but if I called yo momma fat, I bet it'd work the same way.

sauce for the goose

BrotherAlpha:Really? This has happened? I don't recall anyone from the Democratic Party badmouthing the filibuster.

At least not when they're using it.
Wait and watch their attitude about it change during the first Republican filibuster.

Oh, and Thomas Friedman may just be the antichrist.

/Kneel before the Moustache of Understanding!

Wow, we just switched parties in congress, and like the Boobiess, I am guessing more "bbbbbut conservatives/repubs/Bush/Fox" posts are coming, should be fun.

Wonder if the people that ridiculed the "bbbbut Clinton" people will be ridiculing the people now doing the same thing, just to a different team.

HumbleGod: What was that you were saying about a lack of balance?

just guessing, but i don't think many are going to make it beyond reading the headline (with 1 made up quote, and 1 real quote) before commenting.

Never saw this coming.

Media will support the Dems every time.

Chris Barr: now that we are using it against you, you get all pissy

You use "we" when talking politics.

Kind of like people who say "I hope we beat the Ravens tomorrow!!" and "We have been doing better defensively the past couple of games".

/apologies if you are in the Senate

Skleenar & BrotherAlpha

golf clap for both of you. NYT's being taken ridiculously out of context and some people would rather not stop to notice such a thing.

heap: but i don't think many are going to make it beyond reading the headline (with 1 made up quote, and 1 real quote) before commenting.

Judging from the quote below yours, from badger58, you're probably right.

And the pot puts the black shoe on the kettle's other foot. In bed.

japhy
FTA: ... a filibuster, the stalling move that requires 60 votes to overcome, well short of Democratic strength. The author has that backwards. 60 votes is not short of Democratic strength, Democratic strength is short of 60 votes.

Yeah, like I'm going to believe math over the New York Times.

Saturn5: Wait and watch their attitude about it change during the first Republican filibuster.

absolutely.

when i hear a comparison to the nuclear option trotted out, i'll think them to be asstards, too.

this is just friggin silly, tho.

BrotherAlpha:
Really? This has happened? I don't recall anyone from the Democratic Party badmouthing the filibuster.

Saturn5:
At least not when they're using it.
Wait and watch their attitude about it change during the first Republican filibuster.

So people are attacking the Democratic Party for something they might do in the future. Wow, what a convincing argument. I guess both parties truling are the same.

"Never saw this coming.

Media will support the Dems every time."

Oh, totally. Excpet for when they don't, but forget all that.

MichaelMoron: dude, its the NEW YORK TIMES, the mouthpiece of the radical left where every liberal lunatic gets their talking points from.

Warning: Threadshiat Alert

I'm confused. Which political party is being hypocritical here???

felixstrange

Well said. The New York Times is centrist... but horrible. I refer to this as "the bottom wing".

HumbleGod: Judging from the quote below yours, from badger58, you're probably right.

Badger, badger, badger, badger...

I think there are Democratic policies and activities that Republicans can genuinely have beef with.

But when so many conservative Farkers are piling in and agreeing with a hit piece that so blatantly misrepresents the articles it quotes, that certainly doesn't help their credibility.

Libs got the Times, neocons got the Fox network.

Get over it, crybabies.

huphollandhup:
Wow, we just switched parties in congress, and like the Boobiess, I am guessing more "bbbbbut conservatives/repubs/Bush/Fox" posts are coming, should be fun.
Wonder if the people that ridiculed the "bbbbut Clinton" people will be ridiculing the people now doing the same thing, just to a different team.

The, 'But, but, but Clinton fallacy' was a problem for two reasons:

1.) They usually brought up something that had little to do with the debate at hand, (like the blow job).

2.) They usually brought up a minor point that while connected to the debate at hand, showed Clinton in a much better light that Bush but they tried to claim it meant they were equal. For example, Clinton gave patronage postings to several friends, but mostly in non-essential, diplomatic positions. Bush gave patronage posting to incompetent morons and placed them in very, very important positions: the head of FEMA, the head of Homeland Security, many important positions dealing with Iraqi reconstruction, etc.

who the hell is Phillip Buster anyway?

Shows there really isn't much difference between the two parties.

Democrats have run face first into the "good for the goose" paradigm.

/How can something be 'old and archaic' when it is used every 2 years?

NCg8r
I'm confused. Which political party is being hypocritical here???

Both are. Republicans tend to expect their representatives will use hypocrisy to their advantage, while Democrats generally swing between denial and disillusionment when their representatives do the same thing. I don't know which is worse, not expecting any better from politicians, or refusing to believe they are that bad.

HumbleGod:
But when so many conservative Farkers are piling in and agreeing with a hit piece that so blatantly misrepresents the articles it quotes, that certainly doesn't help their credibility.

After six years of Bush & Co., the conservatives don't have any credibility.

MichaelMoron:

dude, its the NEW YORK TIMES, the mouthpiece of the radical left where every liberal lunatic gets their talking points crossword puzzles from.

Will Shortz is God!

/Actually Merle Reagle is God

Maybe the Democrats should do away with the filibuster, then do away with the Republicans ever being allowed to talk or do anything else in the Senate. That'd be fair.

Libs got the Times, neocons got the Fox network.

And both of them get half their stories from AP gossip...

Hey look, once again somebody submitted an Opinion Journal article as "Some Guy." Nice job, asshats.

Partisanship: Only we're allowed to get our way!

Why do we need political parties again?

Skleenar
Actually, just to be accurate, it appears you are the one getting pissy.

No, it looks like the Dems are not going to get their precious "Bush Criticisms" passed because of our little plan. Who is pissy now?

elburritobandito
/apologies if you are in the Senate

House, actually. Being in the minority isn't so bad. No real work, just get to sit back and biatch about how the minority sucks leading the country.

Befuddled: Maybe the Democrats should do away with the filibuster, then do away with the Republicans ever being allowed to talk or do anything else in the Senate. That'd be fair.

Sorry, the point of the last election was that we DON'T want a repeat of the 109th Congress.

BTW, it's not a "but...but...but" argument is actually on point.

*majority

how the majority sucks at leading the country.

So, I read the article, is there something I missed where the Democratic scumbags said that they wanted to get rid of the fillibuster like the Republican scumbags did (or at least threatened to do so)?

Can someone explain how exactly the two statements quoted in the article are in opposition?

1st statement: "the republicans are going to fillibuster"
2nd statement: "the fillibuster is important"

/is confused

Chris Barr: House, actually.

I'm the King of the Universe. I outrank you.

Needlefick Bugducker:
Shows there really isn't much difference between the two parties.

No.

NCg8r
I'm confused. Which political party is being hypocritical here???

Snarfangel:
Both are.

Wrong.

BojanglesPaladin:
Democrats have run face first into the "good for the goose" paradigm.

Idiot.

Listen up, you morons. No one from the Democratic Party has said anything negative about the filibuster. You can't say they are being hypocrits just people someone from the WSJ is biatching about some article they are too stupid to comprehend.

Good god people, wait till there's a story before you attack the Democratic party or you come across as farking lunatics.

felixstrange

Will Shortz is God!

If you haven't seen it yet: Word Play. I loved it.

While the first article does venture into an opinion piece by using the word "arcane" (the meaning of which is debatable) I neglect to see how the older article uses any judgmental language.

The first article was lax in being impartial, I fail to see that in the second, and I fail to see the larger point of this specific comparison.

Granted I don't have the time to scrutinize every word of each article, and I don't read the Times. But the comparison in this case looks a bit thin.

In any case these are small differences that have minimal impact on the articles in their entirety.

BrotherAlpha: Good god people, wait till there's a story before you attack the Democratic party or you come across as farking lunatics.

I think you've made some kind of breakthrough here.

BrotherAlpha wins the thread

Plus, a little reminder what the original filibuster was about:



props to D.C. Simpson

BrotherAlpha

And here I thought yelling farking over and over made you look like a lunatic :)

And how exactly is it an attack to point out the obvious turnabout in positions regarding the filibuster?

dude, its the NEW YORK TIMES, the mouthpiece of the radical left where every liberal lunatic gets their talking points from.

...despite not being overtly liberal since, say, 1989...and then quickly retracted...

MyNameIsNotMervGriffin: Is anyone here actually surprised that:

1. The GOP and DNC have swapped position/rhetoric on the filibuster issue, and

2. The NYT reported the DNC talking points as news back then and it's still doing it now?

/for the win