Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Stupid  
•       •       •

8201 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Jan 2007 at 4:14 PM (9 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 06:13:34 PM  
BojanglesPaladin: But YOU sir, YOU beat them all.

By a minute twenty, no less!
 
2007-01-12 06:14:46 PM  
MunchCunch

It does not benefit anyone to think of congressmen as some sort of special, 'elite' type of person. Most of them serve a few terms and go home. Only people like Byrd, Kennedy (and some Republicans I can't think of at the moment) are lifers.

There should be no 'us' and 'them'. Congress is our peers. (or should be).
 
2007-01-12 06:15:07 PM  
Craptastic

And republicans are certainly NOT hypocrites, right?

Did I say that?

I don't think they are as hypocritical, but still hypocrites.
 
2007-01-12 06:15:16 PM  
theorellior: Why do you hate Murica?

velveeta.

MichaelMoron: The Senate must give its advice and consent. That means the Senate as a whole. They can vote yes, or they can vote no.

or they can table it. no timeline is laid out. saying nothing is not giving consent.

you seem to view this as a favor the senate must do for the executive, when that is not at all the case. their job is to advice and consent - not giving consent is not giving consent.


BojanglesPaladin: 'outrage' and 'decrying' by the minority party.

yes, at doing away with the filibuster. this is not a shoe being thrown on the other foot here.

As for 'filibustering themsleves' I don't understand,

-

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.

They were OUTRAGED by the suggestion that Republicans were even thinking about filibustering.
 
2007-01-12 06:16:09 PM  
Well, it's a little late but...

Does anyone else feel the context might be a little different between 1) 2005, a time when the biggest issue was whether to keep the filibuster or destroy it, versus 2) now when some people are simply mentioning they might filibuster something?

When destroying the filibuster is on the table, it makes a little bit of sense to explore the grand traditions behind it in a newspaper article. When more normal issues are taking the national stage, like now, referring to the filibuster as an arcane rule seems pretty much about right.

Of course, context and nuance seem to always escape Republicans and their goons at Fark. Its so much easier to repeat the same talking points: The Times is full of left wing talking points and is the voice of radical leftist (blah blah...)
 
2007-01-12 06:16:51 PM  
FlashLV

And republicans are certainly NOT hypocrites, right?

Did I say that?

I don't think they are as hypocritical, but still hypocrites.


You are not as entertaining as TGOT.
 
2007-01-12 06:17:55 PM  
FlashLV: Craptastic

And republicans are certainly NOT hypocrites, right?

Did I say that?


You implied it by omission. Fox has taught you well, young padawan.
 
2007-01-12 06:18:25 PM  
MichaelMoron: how "Democratic" is it to refuse to vote on a person? Are you proud of your party doing that? Refusing to allow a vote and leaving a nominee in limbo for years?

You've never had to search for a competitive job, have you? Out in the real world, when you send your resume, a lot of companies never get back to you, even after you call HR a few times. Choosing to "stay in limbo" means either being unemployed, or staying in the same shiat ass job that you're trying to get out of.
 
2007-01-12 06:18:42 PM  
BrotherAlpha:

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

That radical left, as you call us, has been right about nearly everything over the past six years.

Maybe your side should shut the fark up and let the smart people work.


*****

Could you possibly be talking about these smart people?

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source
 
2007-01-12 06:20:58 PM  
1. The 2005 and 2007 articles were written by different people. Different people, even employed by the same newspaper, may have different opinions and different perspectives.

2. The 2005 article didn't even praise the filibuster; it was an article about how a bipartison effort worked to stop a confrontation over the filibuster. The article itself is not an opinion piece and doesn't take a side on whether the filibuster is good or bad. It's certainly not a pro-filibuster piece.
 
2007-01-12 06:21:13 PM  
heap said " not giving consent is not giving consent"

A filibuster is NOT a denial of consent.
A filibuster is a stalling tactic, used to discuss the issue for more time.
The only way to not give consent is to HOLD A VOTE. And then to vote him down. That is the only way to give a recorded, official denial of consent.
 
2007-01-12 06:22:22 PM  
theorellior

Hey it's theoreillior!!

/shrug
 
2007-01-12 06:22:46 PM  
MichaelMoron: A filibuster is NOT a denial of consent.

not giving consent is not giving consent.

nowhere is it stated 'UP OR DOWN VOTE, YAAAAARRGGGGGGGGGH'.

the method of consent is dictated by senate rules, of which the filibuster is one aspect.

The only way to not give consent is to HOLD A VOTE.

yes, and a cloture vote is one aspect of this.
 
2007-01-12 06:23:25 PM  
Wild Bluebonnet: Could you possibly be talking about these smart people?

Let's see what a bunch of Republican cut and runners had to say about Clinton's intervention into Kosovo:

"President Clinton is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be
away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."

-Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That's why I'm against it."

-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/5/99

"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."

-Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of presidential candidate George W. Bush


Why did they demoralize our brave men and women in uniform?

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning...I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."

-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)


"You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo."

-Tony Snow, Fox News 3/24/99


"I'm on the Senate Intelligence Committee, so you can trust me and believe me when I say we're running out of cruise missles. I can't tell you exactly how many we have left, for security reasons, but we're almost out of cruise missles."

-Senator Inhofe (R-OK )

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarifiedrules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"

-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99


"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."

-Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)


"This is President Clinton's war, and when he falls flat on his face, that's his problem."

-Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)


"You can support the troops but not the president"

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)


"My job as majority leader is be supportive of our troops, try to have input as decisions are made and to look at those decisions after they're made ... not to march in lock step with everything the president decides to do."

-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

"Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly."

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)


"Once the bombing commenced, I think then Milosevic unleashed his forces, and then that's when the slaughtering and the massive ethnic cleansing really started"

-Senator Don Nickles (R-OK)

"Clinton's bombing campaign has caused all of these problems to explode"

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)


"America has no vital interest in whose flag flies over Kosovo's capital, and no right to attack and kill Serb soldiers fighting on their own soil to preserve the territorial integrity of their own country"

-Pat Buchanan (R)


"These international war criminals were led by Gen. Wesley Clark ...who clicked his shiny heels for the commander-in-grief, Bill Clinton."

-Michael Savage


"It is a remarkable spectacle to see the Clinton Administration and NATO taking over from the Soviet Union the role of sponsoring "wars of national liberation."

-Representative Helen Chenoweth (R-ID)


"By the order to launch air strikes against Serbia, NATO and President Clinton have entered uncharted territory in mankind's history. Not even Hitler's grab of the Sudetenland in the 1930s, which eventually led to WW II, ranks as a comparable travesty. For, there are no American interests whatsoever that the NATO bombing will either help, or protect; only needless risks to which it exposes the American soldiers and assets, not to mention the victims on the ground in Serbia."

-Bob Djurdjevic, founder of Truth in Media
 
2007-01-12 06:23:52 PM  
Wild Bluebonnet

Do you expect them to not twist those facts?
 
2007-01-12 06:25:03 PM  
christ on a crutch, if this was the special olympics before, i think we've just delved into flea circus territory.
 
2007-01-12 06:25:25 PM  
I say whoever posts the most out-of-context quotes from the opposing party wins!
 
2007-01-12 06:25:33 PM  
Wild Bluebonnet: Could you possibly be talking about these smart people?

Nice C&P from a rightwing email, however, you're ignoring the fact that is wasn't a Democratic president who invaded Iraq based upon false/misleading/misrepresented information.

The douchebags (yes, douchebags) that you love to quote were mostly trying to save their sorry asses after 9/11. Yes, I realize that a few of your happy little quotes were said prior to 9/11, but none of those were suggesting that the USA invade Iraq to "bring democracy to (or liberate) the Middle East". You lose.
 
2007-01-12 06:26:10 PM  
MichaelMoron

heap said " not giving consent is not giving consent"

The only way to not give consent is to HOLD A VOTE. And then to vote him down. That is the only way to give a recorded, official denial of consent.


I'm still waiting for your response on my constitutional question, O Counsel.
 
2007-01-12 06:26:16 PM  
LocalCynic

Let's see what a bunch of Republican cut and runners had to say about Clinton's intervention into Kosovo:


Do you now see your side is not always right? They are both wrong about a lot of stuff.
 
2007-01-12 06:27:21 PM  
"What comes around, goes around."

Well, seems to me the Dems have had this coming for years.

BTW, The so called nukular option had to do with killing filibusters as they applied to nominees, not killing the filibuster altogether.

This use is the old way of doing it and not neccessarily a bad thing.
 
2007-01-12 06:27:34 PM  
"Once the bombing commenced, I think then Milosevic unleashed his forces, and then that's when the slaughtering and the massive ethnic cleansing really started"

-Senator Don Nickles (R-OK)


Every time I read his name as Don Rickles. Then I chuckle.
 
2007-01-12 06:27:48 PM  
FlashLV: Do you now see your side is not always right? They are both wrong about a lot of stuff.

So... you're saying it's bad to knock of a genocidal dictator if you're a Democrat... but it's a good to knock off a genocidal dictator when you're a Republican?

I think I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.
 
2007-01-12 06:28:30 PM  
heap:

christ on a crutch, if this was the special olympics before, i think we've just delved into flea circus territory.



Zing!

i130.photobucket.com
 
2007-01-12 06:28:50 PM  
Oh and copy and pasted quotes don't count unless they're boldfaced, otherwise someone might not realize how very important and truthy they are.

Bonus points for using giant-size fonts and putting a signature at the end of your post.
 
2007-01-12 06:30:23 PM  
felixstrange: I say whoever posts the most out-of-context quotes from the opposing party wins!

-

Wrong. The NYT is a shiatty newspaper that pimped the Iraq war worse than the rest of the media (Judith Miller, Aluminum Tubes, Yellowcake, etc.).

I doubt you'll find any "libs" defending it.

/You learn something new everyday
 
2007-01-12 06:31:30 PM  
mount.diablo: This use is the old way of doing it and not neccessarily a bad thing.

For the record, you're a moron and your team is shooting themselves in the foot. McConnell is threatening to filibuster a resolution on further funding of the Iraq war, because your team doesn't want to be forced to take a stand on the Iraq war. Remember when the Republicans put up the strawman resolution on Murtha's call to redeploy troops? Well, it looks like they can dish it but they can't take it.

In case you need it broken down any further, if the Republicans choose to filibuster stuff on funding the war, Bush is never going to get his money. Therefore, the Republican filibuster is cutting off funding for the troops. Why do Republicans hate the troops?
 
2007-01-12 06:32:16 PM  
Note to self: Must learn to obfuscate gooderer. In order to complexolyze my political worldview. Because that's what it takes to unsimplificate it. Obfuscate = unsimplificate. My new mantra.
 
2007-01-12 06:32:40 PM  
LocalCynic

So... you're saying it's bad to knock of a genocidal dictator if you're a Democrat... but it's a good to knock off a genocidal dictator when you're a Republican?

I think I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.


I'de like to subscribe to the newsletter that gave you that idea from what I posted.

What you quoted and what the other guy quoted shows both sides are hypocrites. That's it, no Democratic twisting here.
 
2007-01-12 06:34:49 PM  
FlashLV

What you quoted and what the other guy quoted shows both sides are hypocrites. That's it, no Democratic twisting here.

How come you never point out GOP hypocracies?
 
2007-01-12 06:35:55 PM  
2007-01-12 04:36:32 PM LocalCynic
2007-01-12 05:52:25 PM LocalCynic
2007-01-12 06:31:30 PM LocalCynic

Each one you insulted someone.

/funny
 
2007-01-12 06:36:27 PM  
Manfred Richthofen: How come you never point out GOP hypocracies?

Because he's a "Libertarian".
 
2007-01-12 06:36:48 PM  
Manfred Richthofen

What you quoted and what the other guy quoted shows both sides are hypocrites. That's it, no Democratic twisting here.

How come you never point out GOP hypocracies?


We have Huffington Post, Crooks and Liars, CNN and Far for that.
 
2007-01-12 06:36:58 PM  
Ya know Wild Bluebonnet , I was just about to say that this thread needed more pictures. But you changed my mind.
 
2007-01-12 06:37:48 PM  
felixstrange

Because he's a "Libertarian".

That's as bad as calling me a Democrat.
 
2007-01-12 06:38:39 PM  
localcynic,
"For the record, you're a moron and your team is shooting themselves in the foot."

Why, because I understand the difference between the filibuster as used to block a nomination (something rare to non existant before GW took office) and as used to block a bill (as Byrd (D) did duiring the civil rights era?

As for having a team. Sorry, I don't have one. They're mostly all asshats, though I do lean to the "right".

"McConnell is threatening to filibuster a resolution on further funding of the Iraq war, because your team doesn't want to be forced to take a stand on the Iraq war."

They took a stand in voting for it. This is a senate resolution, something that is both useless in effect and open to the previously used method of filibuster.

"In case you need it broken down any further, if the Republicans choose to filibuster stuff on funding the war, Bush is never going to get his money."

Someone is an angry elf

" Therefore, the Republican filibuster is cutting off funding for the troops."

BS. Dems would be cutting their own throats by cutting funding.

I'll abstain from calling you a dumbass, only because I'm not sure you would understand what I said.

/prolly just wasted thirty seconds of my life by typing a response
 
2007-01-12 06:39:12 PM  
FlashLV

Manfred Richthofen

How come you never point out GOP hypocracies?

We have Huffington Post, Crooks and Liars, CNN and Far for that.


Well, there're plenty of right-leaning publications, but they never seem to relieve you from taking the job of pointing out Democrat's hypocracies here.
 
2007-01-12 06:39:29 PM  
LocalCynic: "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."

-Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)


LocalCynic wins the thread by a landslide..

/Choke on it neo-tards
 
2007-01-12 06:40:11 PM  
MichaelMoron:
dude, its the NEW YORK TIMES, the mouthpiece of the radical left where every liberal lunatic gets their talking points from.

BrotherAlpha:
That radical left, as you call us, has been right about nearly everything over the past six years.
Maybe your side should shut the fark up and let the smart people work.


Wild Bluebonnet:
Could you possibly be talking about these smart people?

[SNIP!]

Oh good god. You are one of the dumbest people on the planet. You basically just said, 'Look, the Democratic party are morons, they agreed with the Republicans on a number of occasions.'
 
2007-01-12 06:43:40 PM  
MichaelMoron
Democrats successfully filibustered the ANWR drilling bill three times, 2001, 2003, and 2005.

Good.

Spending 10 years to get 3 months of gas is a crappy investment. Especially since we could save way more gas than that buy making cars at least as efficient as they were in the 70's.
 
2007-01-12 06:44:55 PM  
Wild Bluebonnet:
Could you possibly be talking about these smart people?

LocalCynic:
Let's see what a bunch of Republican cut and runners had to say about Clinton's intervention into Kosovo:

What is most scary about your quotes, they apply 100 times more to Iraq than to Kosovo, but if anyone said something similar not only would the Republicans say you were a traitor, the media would repeat that charge as if if was rational discourse.
 
2007-01-12 06:45:04 PM  
"Look, the Democratic party are morons, they agreed with the Republicans on a number of occasions"

Personally, I think anyone in lock-step with the far wing of their ideology are morons. From that exchange, I suspect you both might qualify.

could be wrong since I only read the snipped area but parrots are not known for being superior intellects.
 
2007-01-12 06:46:11 PM  
mount.diablo: They took a stand in voting for it. This is a senate resolution, something that is both useless in effect and open to the previously used method of filibuster.

Okay, so you're freely and openly admitting that Republicans are cowards who are filibustering the resolution because they don't want their position on the war to be known?

Again, they're shooting themselves in the foot. How can they possibly be expected to fund the war if they're going to filibuster any statement on Iraq? The end result is that you're never going to see any movement on a war budget because of the risk that it will be filibustered, and Republicans are going to look like obstructionists who hate the troops.

Well, except to Freepers and mindless conservative robots.
 
2007-01-12 06:46:39 PM  
FlashLV: That's as bad as calling me a Democrat.

I thought that was the new thing for ex-Bush Republicans now that their man's in the toilet: "I'm a Libertarian and have always been!"

Are you one of the few who still own up to being a Republican? Or do you just transcend political boundries like some of the deep political thinkers here on Fark.
 
2007-01-12 06:48:30 PM  
This is a side point but Dems were stupid to fight the troop increase. Once the troops get there, they pretty much HAVE to fund it, or it is political suicide.

That is an old move; FDR used it.
 
2007-01-12 06:49:29 PM  
Manfred Richthofen

Well, there're plenty of right-leaning publications, but they never seem to relieve you from taking the job of pointing out Democrat's hypocracies here.

The cheerleaders here have to be reminded from time to time.
 
2007-01-12 06:50:56 PM  
BrotherAlpha: You basically just said, 'Look, the Democratic party are morons, they agreed with the Republicans on a number of occasions.'

Well it is kinda true most Dems did toss sallad on the Iraq democracy quest... But lets not loose sight of the fact that Republicans of the 90's & the new century just can get anything at all right.

They are a never ending group of corrupt, childabusing, religious fanatics with "small penis" issues, who will defend the most outrightious lies no matter how huge and clear facts are staring them and the nation straight in the eyes..

/I Japan they would all have had to commit suicide a long time ago...
 
2007-01-12 06:51:05 PM  
FlashLV

Well, there're plenty of right-leaning publications, but they never seem to relieve you from taking the job of pointing out Democrat's hypocracies here.

The cheerleaders here have to be reminded from time to time.


The D team more so than the R team?
 
2007-01-12 06:51:27 PM  
Fillibustering appointments is wrong, because:

1) The primary responsibility for appointments is the executive, not the legislative, and so the Senate is failing its responsibility to another branch of gov't

2) It leaves positions empty, or with at best temporary fillings, impairing the functioning of the gov't

By contrast, fillibustering legislation is legit, since the Senate as 1/2 of Congress has (shared) primary responsibility, and the country can function without new laws.

The Republicans only objected to the fillibustering of appointees, not legislation or resolutions. Despite the ranting of left/liberal sheeple here, there's no hypocrisy.

But these folks will continue to bleat "Freeper" and "neocon" to block out reason.
 
2007-01-12 06:52:43 PM  
felixstrange

I thought that was the new thing for ex-Bush Republicans now that their man's in the toilet: "I'm a Libertarian and have always been!"

Are you one of the few who still own up to being a Republican? Or do you just transcend political boundries like some of the deep political thinkers here on Fark.


For some reason the only people that think that are Democrats, weird. But why would I harp on Iraq to be the reson to leave what I believe? Most of my beliefs are on both sides. I am for the death penalty and for abortion. Most people who "leave" the republican party do so because of Iraq, because I can't find anything else wrong with this administration.
 
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