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 459
    More: Stupid  
•       •       •

8198 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Jan 2007 at 4:14 PM (8 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 07:37:12 PM  
FlashLV

Raising taxes doesn't fix it. Why do people think putting a band aid on a broken leg will mend that broken leg?

We need a balanced budget amendment, something that curbs the spending. And by saying that are you saying that Democrats didn't have any pork going through and it was all Republicans?

You think that?


Nope, but you're free to construct some strawman arguments if you want.

It's difficult to believe that the very same people who created our enormous debt, will somehow cut back to widdle it down.

It's essentially splitting hairs of whether we cut back on how much we spend, or if we increase our income.

It's like a person trying to lose weight. Don't bother exercizing off calories, just cut consumption.

Why not do both?

In the end, our current government tax income is raised taxes from a lower amount.

You defend the defecit as 'needed', even though not being horridly in debt is 'needed' too.
 
2007-01-12 07:37:51 PM  
Prohest

You think I'm going to sit here and debunk all that nonsense? The syntax for your list of grievances with this administration goes like this:

Ad homenim, valid point, vague half-baked conspiracy theory, ad homenim, hearsay, ad homenim, valid point, vague half-baked conspiracy theory, hearsay, hearsay, ad homenim, valid point, vague half-baked conspiracy theory...etc

And you call me a troll.
 
2007-01-12 07:38:09 PM  
CHAZZZ: Says so much.

Yeah, because we all know Chimp McCokespoon fired/degraded him for doing such a heck of a job...
 
2007-01-12 07:39:44 PM  
Prohest: Yeah, because we all know Chimp McCokespoon fired/degraded him for doing such a heck of a job...



FlashLV is a funny guy.
 
2007-01-12 07:41:27 PM  
FlashLV: I thought no one knew who was in those meetings?

Personally I have no idea of Enron execs met with Cheney or not, but that is certainly the speculation. To me, whether Enron execs were there or not is irrelevant, the real problem is that the thing was secret. It really created a negative for the administration that didn't need to exist.
 
2007-01-12 07:41:47 PM  
Isn't a Filibuster a grand Senate tradition that is also an arcane old rule?

C'mon, try explaining the "Filibuster" concept to someone unfamiliar with the Senate, and it sounds ridiculous...
 
2007-01-12 07:42:17 PM  
Lispin'Liberal: You think I'm going to sit here and debunk all that nonsense?

No you would only get a nasty headache. I'd feel like i just beat up the handicapped retarded kid if you actually did and seriously hurt what must be the few remaining braincells you got.

/So my advice to you: STFU, GBTW & DIAF
//And stop sniffing glue
///And GET THE FARK OF MY LAWN
 
2007-01-12 07:43:53 PM  
Both parties are a national disgrace, as is the political system in a grander sense on the whole. Politics are dominated by spotlight seeking narcissists more appropriately situated on a Hollywood set as opposed to setting public policy from Washington for a dangerously regressing society.

Neither the Dems nor GOP deserve any defense whatsoever. Truth is that the governing aristocracy is largely (though not without exception) comprised of self-serving scum. And the bipartisan 'swamp' that needs 'draining' is densely polluted with the disturbing, disgusting, and incompetent deeds done by those from Sandy Berger to William Jefferson to Mark Foley to Randall Cunningham and far beyond...


// not half-surprised at America's social fabric clearly en route to burning like Rome
 
2007-01-12 07:43:59 PM  
hophead929

Yeah we can agree on that.

If they were to make everything public it'll get people on one side to be quiet.
 
2007-01-12 07:44:00 PM  
Dancin_In_Anson

"Bush Cheered at Fort Benning: FORT BENNING, Ga.--President Bush, surrounded on Thursday by cheering soldiers in camouflage, defended his decision to send 21,500 more U.S. troops to Iraq and cautioned that the buildup will not produce quick results. 'It's going to take awhile,' he said."--headline and lead paragraph, Associated Press, Jan. 11

"Bush Speaks and Base Is Subdued: FORT BENNING, Ga., Jan. 11--President Bush came to this Georgia military base looking for a friendly audience to sell his new Iraq strategy. But his lunchtime talk received a restrained response from soldiers who clapped politely but showed little of the wild enthusiasm that they ordinarily shower on the commander in chief."--New York Times, Jan. 12

News or Op Ed?


Good find. But is AP the unbiased source here?

The same event, reported in 4 different publications, with 4 different titles:

"Bush Cheered at Fort Benning" - AP

"At Fort Benning, a Quiet Response to a Presidential Visit" - Washington Post

"Bush Speaks and Base Is Subdued" - NY Times

"Bush pitches Iraq plan to Ft. Benning soldiers" - LA Times (in that article, 'Bush's "audience was friendly, but his sober address received a less enthusiastic reception than has been the case on his past visits to military bases to promote his Iraq policy."')

But of COURSE all those other sources are biased right?

sources
 
2007-01-12 07:45:44 PM  
CHAZZZ:

I'll take arrogance over corruption and playing grab ass with teenage boys.


*****

Well let's see ...

We have an admittedly gay State Representative sending lascivious instant messages to a former Congressional page who was of legal adult age at the time ...

Then we have a former President of the United States having his salad tossed in the oval office, then lying about it under oath which led to his impeachment - in front of the entire world.

I'm not sure which is worse.

/boggle
 
2007-01-12 07:45:52 PM  
cannibolic


C'mon, try explaining the "Filibuster" concept to someone unfamiliar with the Senate, and it sounds ridiculous...


Yeah it never made sense why the minority was able to have so much power.
 
2007-01-12 07:45:55 PM  
I just remembered I have cold beer in the fridge. Later fools!

/JK
 
2007-01-12 07:46:49 PM  
Wild Bluebonnet

Nice and subtle.
 
2007-01-12 07:47:37 PM  
FlashLV

C'mon, try explaining the "Filibuster" concept to someone unfamiliar with the Senate, and it sounds ridiculous...

Yeah it never made sense why the minority was able to have so much power.


Unless you missed the whole concept, the constitution, or more specifically the Bill of Rights was meant to protect the minotrity from the majority.

That's their 'power', is not being trampled on.
 
2007-01-12 07:48:35 PM  
And, as usual, another "win" for FlashLV.

Note that almost everybody is in an unwinnable pissing match over highly subjective or inconceivably pedantic statements now, and the only people still discussing the actual topic are the latecomers who haven't been sucked in yet by all the stupid being posted.

/sigh
//I need a TF account with a wildcard for the ignore list...
 
2007-01-12 07:49:20 PM  
Drasancas

What about minotaurs?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minotaur
 
2007-01-12 07:52:32 PM  
Gannon's Remorse

and the only people still discussing the actual topic are the latecomers who haven't been sucked in yet by all the stupid being posted.


good point, but that's not to be blamed on me!
 
2007-01-12 07:52:52 PM  
Gannon's Remorse: //I need a TF account with a wildcard for the ignore list...

It is 5 bucks a month !! Whats the problem ?

/+ you can use Adblock & Noscript without any guilt!!
 
2007-01-12 07:56:36 PM  
Brotheralpha,
"This is what the legislative branch is for."
Really? And all this time I've thought the primary responsibility of the legislature was legislation?

The Senate (not the legislative branch since the house has no say) is responsible for vetting qualifications. Qualifications these days apparently mean asking the guy if he attended church last year or if he believes abortion is unconstitutional. That's not a question of qualifications, it's a chance to vet his ideology and that is NOT a role for the Senate.

LC,
"These people are saying "I have a tough race in 2008 and it's more important that I protect my own political aspirations than that we budget for the war.""

I agree with you. That's what I meant by political calculations. It's unfortunate but true and it happens to 90% of legislators on both sides. They're almost all scumbags.

"So long as the minority party takes that view, the majority will find it difficult to bring legislation on the war to the floor due to the risk that it will be filibustered"

Nothing new here. DC is still a cesspool run by people who only put away their knives for very short periods of emergency and sometimes not even then.

I wish we could take the entire legislature and fdisk/format. A new crop of non party hacks would be refreshing.
 
2007-01-12 07:57:45 PM  
Cracker_monkey_in_a_cage: Liberals are hypocrites. Conservatives are hypocrites.
The difference is liberals add arrogant to the mix.


The conservatives call theirs "righteousness."
 
2007-01-12 07:57:53 PM  
Wild Bluebonnet: Well let's see ...

We have an admittedly gay State Representative sending lascivious instant messages to a former Congressional page who was of legal adult age at the time ...

Then we have a former President of the United States having his salad tossed in the oval office, then lying about it under oath which led to his impeachment - in front of the entire world.

I'm not sure which is worse.



You have already decided which is worse so what's the point. I'm sure you still support the president and voted straight republican last election.
 
2007-01-12 07:58:29 PM  
FlashLV: good point, but that's not to be blamed on me!

www.fotothing.com

I'd horsewhip you if I had a horse..

/shutdown -h now
 
2007-01-12 07:59:04 PM  
Prohest: It is 5 bucks a month !! Whats the problem ?

I just quit WoW (it saddens me that it took me four months to quit giving that brainless piece of garbage the benefit of the doubt...) so I guess I do have an extra fifteen bucks a month. I could go TF and sign up for SA and break even...
 
2007-01-12 08:03:40 PM  
BrotherAlpha
How about the energy policy? The administration basically let Enron write the energy policy for the company.

FlashLV:
Most of the Enron stuff took place under Clinton wtf are you bringing that up for?

You truly are stupid. So stupid you should be locked up in a padded cell for your own protection.

Ken Lay helped write the Bush administration energy policy. How the fark could he have done that under the Clinton administration?

How about No Child Left Behind? Even if you agree with the program, it is hideously underfunded.

I don't have any children


Translation: If it doesn't affect me personally, then I don't care.

Selfishness, the keystone of any true conservative.

How about illegal wiretapping? The system is set up so it is foolishly easy to get a warrant, so the only reason to not get one is if you are spying on the wrong people.

Wasn't illegal, if it was we would have indictments. Oh and no proof any US citizen was tapped.


Yeah, cause the Republicans in charge of investigating it were so committed to finding out if a crime had taken place.

How about Don't Ask, Don't Tell? The Republicans have thrown out 55 Arabic language translators at a time when there is a crtical shortage, just because they were gay.

proof?


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/14/attack/main529418.shtml

That was more than four years ago. And no, I'm not going to link to every story till all 55 are acounted for.

How about patronage appointments? Sure, every government does it, but usually with diplomatic embassies in small / tropical nations. Not with the head of major government departments, (FEMA, Homeland Security, Iraqi reconstruction), etc.

not against policy. I don't care and how does that affect you?


What the fark? Bush appointed people to key positions based on loyalty and not ability. These has a huge affect on the government and the people they are supposed to serve.

Do I have to go on?
Yes, next with good examples please.


Obviously it is not worth it as you are incapable or recognizing facts.
 
2007-01-12 08:18:27 PM  
Geez, ,I thought wild bluebonnet and the rest of the crazies had gone away after the election. Ah well, nuts will be nuts.
 
2007-01-12 08:21:19 PM  
08:03:40 PM BrotherAlpha: Selfishness, the keystone of any true conservative.

Generosity with the other guy's money. The keystone of any true liberal.
 
2007-01-12 08:26:53 PM  
Remember boys and girls, there is no such thing as liberal media bias.
 
2007-01-12 08:27:02 PM  
jjorsett: Generosity with the other guy's money. The keystone of any true liberal.

I'm confused. People like you keep telling me liberals are a bunch of out-of-touch trust-funders sipping Chiatni and eating brie in our ivory towers while looking down on the "common working man"... but you also say that the wealthy pay an unfair portion of taxes which would be us durn rich biatch liberals with our fancy designer clothes and expensive Audis... but you also say the liberals are taking "other people's money" to give to everyone else.

Do me a favor and keep the lies consistent across issues. It's bad enough I have to listen that crap to begin with, I'm tired of having to draw Venn diagrams to keep all the bullshiat from the right-wingers organized.
 
2007-01-12 08:41:07 PM  
The NY Times has openly admitted their liberal bias. Why would this change of opinion surprise anyone?


\NYT = disgraced gray lady
 
2007-01-12 08:42:12 PM  
qmony: Remember boys and girls, there is no such thing as liberal media bias.

Did ya read the thread? How 'bout the article? The Times article(s)? How is this situation evidence of liberal media bias? The Times used the word "arcane" - a word which accurately describes Senate rules.
 
2007-01-12 08:42:52 PM  
Prohest Cracker_monkey_in_a_cage: he difference is liberals add arrogant some sanity to the mix.
Fixed it for you!"


No, you did.
 
2007-01-12 08:45:18 PM  
SofaKingSweet: The NY Times has openly admitted their liberal bias. Why would this change of opinion surprise anyone?

Jesus. What change of opinion? The Times expressed no opinion in the first article - they quoted a Republican who quoted a Democrat who thought that avoiding the "nuclear option" was important for maintaining the integrity of the Senate as an institution. The Times expressed no opinion in the second article either - they used the word "arcane" which, as anyone who has taken a glance at the Senate rules will tell you, is an entirely accurate description of the Senate rules.

There is nothing inconsistent about the articles. This is just bullshiat spin by some guy at OpinionJournal who apparently doesn't know what the term "arcane" means.
 
2007-01-12 09:02:54 PM  
mediaho: Unlike Opinion Journal, the NYT is not a single person with a single philosophy.

Exactly. Taranto takes two different articles by two different authors from two different years, then uses them as "proof" of the New York Times' "liberal bias" simply because they both happened to be published in the NYT when they came out.

The insidious thing that makes Taranto a straight-up propagandist in this instance is that he obviously KNOWS what he's doing here and how it's completely dishonest, but tries to pass it off as honest opinion anyway.

Scumbag.
 
2007-01-12 09:02:58 PM  
I'm sorry, but there is some weak, weak rhetorical skill in right-leaning Fark posters lately. It's really not surprising that you get no respect if all you've got is "both sides are just as bad," when that's just not demonstrably true, and anemic backslapping ("Oh, wow, Rush_is_always_right, what an amazing post, I'll bet the liberals are diving under the covers now!").

It's really kind of disappointing and a touch maddening to see the party of such great ideals as "individual freedom" and "limited government," taking exclusive refuge in obfuscatory pedantry and tu quoque fallacies.

Come on, inspire a little pride in your philosophies :(
 
2007-01-12 09:13:39 PM  
Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: Geez, ,I thought wild bluebonnet and the rest of the crazies had gone away after the election. Ah well, nuts will be nuts.

Nah, all they really have left is spewing insults at the ephemeral, ubiquitous "liberal"; they seem to really get off on hating and pissing off their fellow Americans. It's their main hobby these days and is the core of their political activism.
 
2007-01-12 09:14:29 PM  
Do NOT look at me. I want the Democrat party, and the filibuster, to both go away. Fer good.

Right now, too. When those two are on opposite sides. The filibuster is a brain-damaged stupid-ass fluke that threatens our form of representative government, more and more as the senatorial divide becomes ever more razor-thin. It has no place in our government, none at all.

Neither do popularly-elected Senators, for that matter. But that's a story for another day.
 
2007-01-12 09:21:15 PM  
mkfreeberg: I want the Democrat party, and the filibuster, to both go away. Fer good.

It's a good thing that there is no "Democrat" party then.
 
2007-01-12 09:21:26 PM  
Anyone else think it is a little funny that classical liberals are fiscally conservative, while social conservatives are fiscally liberal?

/Thread jack!
 
2007-01-12 09:22:56 PM  
LocalCynic: Let's see what a bunch of Republican cut and runners had to say about Clinton's intervention into Kosovo:

Thanks, I'm cutting and pasting for my future use.
 
2007-01-12 09:23:44 PM  
mkfreeberg: Do NOT look at me. I want the Democrat party, and the filibuster, to both go away. Fer good.

You should be glad to find out that there is no Democrat party, then. There's a Democratic party, but no Democrat party.

Right now, too. When those two are on opposite sides. The filibuster is a brain-damaged stupid-ass fluke that threatens our form of representative government, more and more as the senatorial divide becomes ever more razor-thin. It has no place in our government, none at all.

The filibuster is arguably much more important, and more beneficial to "our form of representative government" when the margin in the Senate is "razor-thin." In a Senate that hovers around 50-50, having a filibuster available ensures that a 51-vote majority does not dominate over a 49-vote minority. Representative government should not mean that the "losing side" gets no voice.
 
2007-01-12 09:26:07 PM  
El_Perro: Representative government should not mean that the "losing side" gets no voice.

well...if people from those states wanted to be represented, then they just should voted harder!
 
2007-01-12 09:28:53 PM  
I come back to the thread to see if FlashLV is still doing his usual song and dance number, and boy was I not disappointed.

Thanks, Flash. One of these days I'm gonna reverse-engineer your arguing logic and we'll finally see what the voices are telling you.
 
2007-01-12 09:31:18 PM  
mkfreeberg: Neither do popularly-elected Senators, for that matter. But that's a story for another day.

Repeal the 17th Amendment!!!!
 
2007-01-12 10:24:22 PM  
mkfreeberg: Neither do popularly-elected Senators, for that matter. But that's a story for another day.

Italian-style Fascist found
 
2007-01-12 10:28:28 PM  
Whoa! Freeberg is back?

What's wrong, man? Nobody's reading your blog lately?
 
2007-01-12 10:34:43 PM  
jjorsett: Generosity with the other guy's money. The keystone of any true liberal.

i56.photobucket.com
 
2007-01-12 10:45:07 PM  
Is the United Fruit Company involved?


/wrong filibuster
 
2007-01-12 11:04:07 PM  
In my careful semantic analysis of this thread, I find the following truths:

Democrats making logical points - a lot
Republicans ignoring those points and making non-sequitor attacks - all of them.

Anyone remember the old Firing Line shows? At least Buckley was an expert debater. The current wearers of Lincoln's Party rely on pithy phrases and talking points to avoid logic.

Thread summary:

Democrats - "this is true, this is true, and this is true"
Republicans - "Clinton got a blowjob"

And to those folks who think that both parties do the same things, tell me when Clinton destabilized an entire region on the edge of the boiling point?

Ah yes "Kosovo". That turned out so badly. Cuz they control our entire economy n stuff. Millions of barrels of oil coming out of that region.

The big question I have is, since far less than a third of America thinks Bush is a great guy, why are Fark conservatives so over-represented? Are we being Freeped?
 
2007-01-12 11:35:23 PM  
simpsonfan: a Bush impeachment

Dear God, no. Not even if we got rid of Cheney first.
 
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 »
Advertisement
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