If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   New York Times, 2005: "The filibuster is a grand Senate tradition that must be protected from Republicans." NYT, yesterday: "Republicans are dusting off arcane old rules to frustrate Democrats" (third item)   (opinionjournal.com) divider line 459
    More: Stupid  
•       •       •

8193 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Jan 2007 at 4:14 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



459 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-01-12 04:44:37 PM  
dude, its the NEW YORK TIMES, the mouthpiece of the radical left where every liberal lunatic gets their talking points from.


Congratulations to MichaelMoron who has just won hisself a very special personal img.fark.com tag with that one. A bravado use of a talking point to complain about the use of talking points!
 
2007-01-12 04:44:44 PM  
mediaho: Unlike Opinion Journal, the NYT is not a single person with a single philosophy.

No, it's many people with the same philosophy.

I still think the filibuster should be abolished. The people should get the government they vote for, good or bad.
 
2007-01-12 04:45:25 PM  
Wait and watch their attitude about it change during the first Republican filibuster

If it does, fine. Since it hasn't, STFU.
 
2007-01-12 04:45:28 PM  
skinny-lil-b: "Does Republican or Democrat really matter anymore? They're all pansy-assed scum-sucking blowtards.

/can we just cockpunch them all & bury the bodies?"


I'm with skinny-lil-b. I'm going on a killing spree. Watch
the news.
 
2007-01-12 04:45:35 PM  
BojanglesPaladin: /How can something be 'old and archaic' when it is used every 2 years?

"arcane" does not mean "archaic"

that's how.
 
2007-01-12 04:46:06 PM  
BojanglesPaladin:
And here I thought yelling farking over and over made you look like a lunatic :)

ARRRRRGGGGG HFFFDDOOOOO!!!!!

And if that doesn't prove I'm sane, I'm afraid you just are willing to listen to reason.

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

I say this again using smaller words.

There is no change in position. The story is based on a lie. WSJ lied to you.
 
2007-01-12 04:46:08 PM  
IlGreven: ...despite not being overtly liberal since, say, 1989...and then quickly retracted...

Just what would they have to do to be considered "overtly liberal" to you?

I understand that both parties are hypocritical on this issue, what I don't understand is how anyone can read the NYT and not conclude that its politics are on the left.
 
2007-01-12 04:46:25 PM  
Chris Barr: 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?

Still you, it seems.
 
2007-01-12 04:46:46 PM  
BrotherAlpha: 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.

QFT.

Not only did no one from the Democratic Party say anything negative about the filibuster (or any other Senate rule), neither did the NY Times. The NY Times called the Senate rules (including, perhaps, the filibuster) "arcane," meaning that few people fully understand the rules. That is certainly an accurate description of the rules (why do you think there's the Senate has a parliamentarian, and why are members of the parliamentarian's office seated right on the Senate dais while the Senate is in session?). The Times also described the filibuster as a "stalling move," which, again, is entirely accurate.
 
2007-01-12 04:47:46 PM  
MasterThief: I still think the filibuster should be abolished. The people should get the government they vote for, good or bad.

And I still think the filibuster should be retained. Some people would like the Senate to become the House. The Senate's rules are what make it the saner and more moderate chamber that keeps the passions of the House in check.

/Can we all agree that Tom Friedman should be locked in a box full of snakes?
 
2007-01-12 04:49:18 PM  
nickyhopkins: A lot of Republican hate is being greenlit the past couple days...

This sort of thing is to be expected. As soon as the speeches of bipartisanship cooperation were done, Democrats were going to do what they hated republicans for, and Republicans were going to do what Democrats were doing before.

These stories are good, because it makes public record of obivious bias (New York Times, Fox News).

In this case, The New York Times loses a lot of credibility. It's hard for them to backpedal on this one.

We'll see how Fox handles Iraq if a Democrat wins the White House.
 
2007-01-12 04:49:27 PM  
BojanglesPaladin: And how exactly is it an attack to point out the obvious turnabout in positions regarding the filibuster?

can you point out a obvious turnabout here, other than 'nuke it!' changing to 'we're gonna use it'?
 
2007-01-12 04:49:31 PM  
BrotherAlpha - After six years of Bush & Co., the conservatives don't have any credibility.

If you'd have said "republicans" instead of "conservatives", you'd have had something.
 
2007-01-12 04:49:40 PM  
Don't know if anyone has said it yet, but the 2005 Democratic filibuster was over judges... a position that constitutionally calls for an up or down vote. That's where the problem was, but oh well. Democraps are cooler than Republitards so... the Republitards are wrong by default.
 
2007-01-12 04:49:41 PM  
Impudent Domain:
I understand that both parties are hypocritical on this issue,

How can you say that? The Democratic Party hasn't made a statement on the issue yet.

what I don't understand is how anyone can read the NYT and not conclude that its politics are on the left.

I don't know, perhaps they read all the bullshiate they pusblished during the run-up to the Iraq war. That certainly wasn't very left leaning.
 
2007-01-12 04:50:11 PM  
BrotherAlpha: I say this again using smaller words.

There is no change in position. The story is based on a lie. WSJ lied to you.


For as many times as GOP stalwarts profess ignorance of simple concepts, it is breathtaking how often they expect people to take them seriously.
 
2007-01-12 04:50:17 PM  
felixstrange:
/Can we all agree that Tom Friedman should be locked in a box full of snakes?

Hell no. I don't think you should abuse snacks like that.
 
2007-01-12 04:50:46 PM  
If Democrats use the same tactics to isolate the minority, as was used against them when they themselves were the minority, then both parties are equal.

It's not so much that I want to see turning the other cheek but rather being the better man. If you think otherwise, then politics to you is a sport in which to root root root for the home team.
 
2007-01-12 04:50:47 PM  
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.

Who was talking about the Democrats? I was talking about the Republicans being hypocritcal. The bar stays low for the democrats, if they start being hypocritical it is more likely no one save for a few radio pundits will even notice anymore.
 
2007-01-12 04:50:59 PM  
Not surprising. The democrats are just as full of shiat as the republicans. Both parties spend most of their time making sure that their lobbyists get the best possible tax cuts, keeping with the party line whether they actually support it or not so as to continue to get funding, or campaigning to make sure they get re-elected six years from now. They use whatever means necessary to make those things happen, and seem to have little interest in actually making the country a better place.
 
2007-01-12 04:51:35 PM  
The pendulum swings and the positions reverse. Why the stupid tag? Is obvious out for coffee?

\any neocon who opens his mouth on this to complain has no idea how ignorant they sound
\\then again...
 
2007-01-12 04:51:43 PM  
MasterThief: I still think the filibuster should be abolished. The people should get the government they vote for, good or bad.

yah, they do. and the filibuster is part of that government.

you don't have an election, set a majority party, and all other positions vanish.
 
2007-01-12 04:51:45 PM  
greenbeans_and_physics: If you use FAIR as a source, don't expect to sway people with it.

Damnit! You ruined my troll! Now fewer heads will asplode from browsing their website.

How's this:

"Even we at Fox News manage to get some lefties on the air occasionally, and often let them finish their sentences before we club them to death and feed the scraps to Karl Rove and Bill O'Reilly."

Fox News London bureau chief Scott Norvell. From his Op-ed in the Wall Street Journal European edition, May 20th 2005.
 
2007-01-12 04:51:47 PM  
BrotherAlpha

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

>> Snarfangel: Both are.

Wrong.


You certainly convinced me. I can't possibly argue against such a definitive statement.

/I'll ignore the ad hominem attacks underneath. I'm sure you meant to make a logical argument instead.
 
2007-01-12 04:51:59 PM  
Other people are saying that in the thread, Needlefick
 
2007-01-12 04:52:21 PM  
BrotherAlpha
After six years of Bush & Co., the conservatives don't have any credibility.

Brew78:
If you'd have said "republicans" instead of "conservatives", you'd have had something.

Until more conservatives stand up and say, "The Republicans do not represent conservative values," they will continue to lose credibility with every mistake Bush & Co. make.
 
2007-01-12 04:52:42 PM  
BrotherAlpha: I don't know, perhaps they read all the bullshiate they pusblished during the run-up to the Iraq war. That certainly wasn't very left leaning.

For anybody calling the NYT "liberal":

Judy Miller.

No. Not liberal. End of discussion. Please find a new talking point. Thanks.
 
2007-01-12 04:53:33 PM  
nuclear_asshat: In this case, The New York Times loses a lot of credibility. It's hard for them to backpedal on this one.

You didn't read the NYT articles in question, did you?

Rather than take one guy's interpretation of two articles for granted, why not read the articles and then come back with your own interpretation? You can keep saying that a smear job from the WSJ's opinion page causes the NYT to "lose credibility," but that doesn't make it so.
 
2007-01-12 04:53:38 PM  
mpv81: position that constitutionally calls for an up or down vote

Where in the Constitution?
 
2007-01-12 04:54:24 PM  
BrotherAlpha: Hell no. I don't think you should abuse snacks like that.


I'd hate to be on YOUR diet. ;)
 
2007-01-12 04:54:29 PM  
Snarfangel: You certainly convinced me. I can't possibly argue against such a definitive statement.

How, exactly, is the Democratic Party (which has not said a thing about the filibuster since taking office) being hypocritical here?
 
2007-01-12 04:54:32 PM  
DRTWT, but to those who wonder what the Democrats' response to a Republican filibuster is likely to be, the answer is "confusion". You don't need a filibuster when you still have the Presidency with veto power, except to just be annoying.
 
2007-01-12 04:54:34 PM  
Snarfangel

You certainly convinced me. I can't possibly argue against such a definitive statement.

Okay how about you bring up one statement from the democrats that shows they have changed positions?

And for the rest of the people here who don't understand the word "arcane" get a friggin dictionary.
 
2007-01-12 04:54:45 PM  
IXI Jim IXI: Where in the Constitution?

the part right under the maze on the back of the denny's placemat.
 
2007-01-12 04:55:04 PM  
BrotherAlpha
Wrong.

Snarfangel:
You certainly convinced me. I can't possibly argue against such a definitive statement.

/I'll ignore the ad hominem attacks underneath. I'm sure you meant to make a logical argument instead.


No, you are ignoring my logical argument that followed because you can't find fault in it, other that it goes against your pre-ordained belied.
 
2007-01-12 04:55:41 PM  
The Republicans quite often these past several years do not represent conservative values.
 
2007-01-12 04:55:47 PM  
Other people are saying that in the thread, Needlefick

I was named personally by someone on a smugness kick. I see what the other people are saying, just typical political teeth gnashing. It isn't about right, wrong, justice, or what is best for the people.. it's about hating the other party and getting back in power. Democrats and Republicans are the same in that. I count myself as an ex-green reluctant democrat too! Have no illusions, however.
 
2007-01-12 04:56:05 PM  
Snarfangel: /I'll ignore the ad hominem attacks factual argument underneath.

Those blinders seem to fit nicely. Are those custom made?
 
2007-01-12 04:56:53 PM  
felixstrange: And I still think the filibuster should be retained. Some people would like the Senate to become the House. The Senate's rules are what make it the saner and more moderate chamber that keeps the passions of the House in check.

The roles of the House and Senate have reversed from the founders' design. Senate elections are much more competitive and many more elections are contested, while, thanks to gerrymandering and being able to draw their own districts, it's the House members that accumulate the wisdom of age (though they don't seem to show it in any other way but bringing more goddamn pork home to their districts).

Plus, the faster laws can be passed, the faster they can be repealed when the people figure out they don't f*cking work.

/Can we all agree that Tom Friedman should be locked in a box full of snakes?

Venomous or non-venomous?
 
2007-01-12 04:56:59 PM  
heap

The turnabout is in the democrats having once decried the threat of Republicans using the exact same tactic they now seem to be readt to use themselves now that the situation is reversed.

They kept saying it was 'unfair' when the Republican's were going to do it, so it should now be equaly 'unfair' for the Democrats to do it.

/for the record, I like the filibuster option. It is a nice check to congressional majority.
 
2007-01-12 04:58:02 PM  
BojanglesPaladin: The turnabout is in the democrats having once decried the threat of Republicans using the exact same tactic they now seem to be readt to use themselves now that the situation is reversed.

did the voices in your head tell you this?

please, point out the democrat that is saying anything comparable to what you stated.
 
2007-01-12 04:58:04 PM  
nuclear_asshat: In this case, The New York Times loses a lot of credibility.

Egad.

In what possible sane world would this logic apply?
 
2007-01-12 04:58:35 PM  
This is stupid, the 2007 NYT article is somewhat biased, but the 2005 one isn't- thus no hypocrisy. The old article simply reported on what Byrd said, and of course he's biased because he's a Dem. The 2005 article doesn't really take a side on this issue, if anything it seems relieved that the showdown was averted.
 
2007-01-12 04:59:13 PM  
BojanglesPaladin: They kept saying it was 'unfair' when the Republican's were going to do it, so it should now be equaly 'unfair' for the Democrats to do it.

Yes. So why don't you wait for the Democrats to actually do so. Then your argument would be so much more cogent.

Or can you see into the future?
 
2007-01-12 04:59:32 PM  
mpv81: Don't know if anyone has said it yet, but the 2005 Democratic filibuster was over judges... a position that constitutionally calls for an up or down vote.

No. It doesn't.
 
2007-01-12 04:59:33 PM  
mpv81: Don't know if anyone has said it yet, but the 2005 Democratic filibuster was over judges... a position that constitutionally calls for an up or down vote. That's where the problem was, but oh well. Democraps are cooler than Republitards so... the Republitards are wrong by default.


Well, since the fillibuster stems from a senate procedural rule and has nothing to do with the Constitution, I am not 100% clear where you are going with this, can you elaborate?
 
2007-01-12 04:59:39 PM  
Of course both sides do it and both sides biatch about it when the other side does it and the majority on both sides are hypocrites (kind of goes with the name political party)and some on both sides aren't.

Pretty simple really and if you don't see that are are attributing condemnation more specifically odds are you aren't being objective.
 
2007-01-12 05:00:32 PM  
BojanglesPaladin: The turnabout is in the democrats having once decried the threat of Republicans using the exact same tactic they now seem to be readt to use themselves now that the situation is reversed.

What tactic do the Democrats "seem to be ready to use themselves" now that they are in power? How can you possibly call the Democrats hypocritical in this situation (or even argue that there's been "turnabout") when the Democrats have not said a damn thing about the filibuster.

This is about some idiot from OpinionJournal not knowing what the word "arcane" means, and reading something into a Times piece that simply isn't there.
 
2007-01-12 05:01:35 PM  
heap: the part right under the maze on the back of the denny's placemat.

DAMMIT!

I got BBQ sauce on that spot.
 
2007-01-12 05:01:54 PM  
heap

I'm not saying the Democrats ARE saying this. That's the point. They were OUTRAGED by the suggestion that Republicans were even thinking about filibustering.

And yet, now that it is advantageous for the Democrats, the democrats without blinking an eye... are thinking about using it.
 
Displayed 50 of 459 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report