Filibuster Compromise

[RandFan]

Senators Avert Showdown Over Filibusters

 

[Kopji]

It will be interesting to watch and see if an influential centrist core develops.

 

[Magyar]

What makes you think there is any motivation for a centrist core?

The Dems just proved again that all they are is a Republican light and the Republicans are controlled by the radical right!
If you are on the far right you just got validated! What just happened shows you that what you are doing is right it's just that you have to fight a little harder to get everyone one your side.

The tail is waging the dog, the minority that even knows what's going on are being dragged along and the vast majority of the people aren't even concerned!

Padme was wrong - democracy dies with one un-noticed whimpy little compromise at a time.

 

[Rob Lister]

What makes you think there is any motivation for a centrist core?

The Dems just proved again that all they are is a Republican light and the Republicans are controlled by the radical right!
If you are on the far right you just got validated! What just happened shows you that what you are doing is right it's just that you have to fight a little harder to get everyone one your side.

The tail is waging the dog, the minority that even knows what's going on are being dragged along and the vast majority of the people aren't even concerned!

Padme was wrong - democracy dies with one un-noticed whimpy little compromise at a time.

Well, if that's really the case, the solution is simple. Just vote in more far left democrats.

 

[BPSCG]

Padme was wrong - democracy dies with one un-noticed whimpy little compromise at a time.

That's what you get when you get your political science from Hollywood.

Compromise is at the core of democracy. Stalin, Mao, and Hitler didn't compromise. They didn't have to.

I took a collective bargaining course when I was in college; the professor was a professional labor relations mediator. He liked to say that one of the signs of a good labor agreement is when neither side is completely happy. Means they both had to give up some of what they wanted to get the rest of what they wanted.

What's interesting is how the term "extraordinary circumstances" will be interpreted. Probably most people figure it means if a nominee turns out to be the current Grand Dragon of his KKK chapter and president of his local chapter of NAMBLA, that would be extraordinary circumstances justifying a filibuster. But such a nominee would be so radioactive that no filibuster would be necessary, so I don't think that's what they have in mind.

Could it be that by "extraordinary circumstances", they mean a Supreme Court nominee?

Just wondering.

 

[Magyar]

BPSCG

You know you make a lot of great points in this forum and I usually like reading your commentary. You're absolutely right, a good compromise gives both sides something and makes neither side completely happy, but I don't see a compromise here. All I see is the dems gave in - not all the way, but the towel is in hand - and the far right like PFAW and the like don't give a rats a** about compromise.

But sometimes you can be such a pompous ass. It's a forum not an Ivy league college class room, get over yourself.
____________________________________________________
"After years of struggle, a war for independence, tremendous sacrifices, lengthy debates and heated discussions, when the Constitution had at long last been signed, 216 years ago, Benjamin Franklin had commented that "you have a Republic, if you can keep it."

In their ACTA report titled "Restoring America's Legacy," authors Anne D. Neal and Jerry L. Martin wrote:"Benjamin Franklin... underscored a fundamental truth: a democratic republic is not self-sustaining. It requires ...its citizens, generation-after generation, to receive an adequate grounding in the history of America's free institutions... (so that these citizens...realize that they) are responsible for maintaining (this democracy), since it is (not) inevitable." "
http://www.goacta.org
____________________________________________________

In the context of the movie Padme's point is EXACTLY the same, that an uneducated, unconcerned electorate will give away their freedom without ever blinking an eye, because they are clueless as to what they are giving up! Ready for a clue -












CLUE - Patriot Act!

Rob - NO WAY lib dems are what got us here in the first place.
We do not need extremes, we need that educated public that will
be involved and NOT allow the pendulim to swing in such a wide
spectrum. My fear, baseless it maybe, is that it will be too late by the time they wake up and we'll have lost far too much by then.

 

[varwoche]

Could it be that by "extraordinary circumstances", they mean a Supreme Court nominee?

Yes, I predict the agreement unravels when Bush makes his 1st SC nomination.

 

[Jocko]

In the context of the movie Padme's point is EXACTLY the same, that an uneducated, unconcerned electorate will give away their freedom without ever blinking an eye, because they are clueless as to what they are giving up!

Here's a bit of wisdom that doesn't come from a sci-fi movie featuring a weak script and bad acting (shades of Kerry/Edwards?)

For all your grousing about the uneducated, unconcerned electorate, it's elitist leftist snobs that keep shooting their own movement in the foot with statements precisely like this one.

The "uneducated and unconcerned" showed up in record numbers last November. What does that make the left by comparison? Elitist, snotty, disorganized poor losers, that's what. And like the rest of the liberal moutpieces of today, you just love to blame your own inadequacies at the polls on the right.

Want to combat the republicans? Elect more democrats. Sorrry if that seems "uneducated" to you, but then not everyone can approach the razor-sharp political instincts of George Lucas.

 

[RandFan]

Rob - NO WAY lib dems are what got us here in the first place.

What? Capitalists, dems, mod dems, mod republicans, republicans, conservatives had nothing to do with why we are here?

My poly-sci teacher was a liberal. It was his opinion that conflict and compromise were crucial to a healthy nation. He believed that seeing one side as good and the other bad was short sighted. He also believed that there was value to the extreme groups if they move us from our intragency.

We do not need extremes, we need that educated public that will be involved and NOT allow the pendulum to swing in such a wide spectrum. My fear, baseless it maybe, is that it will be too late by the time they wake up and we'll have lost far too much by then.

Such fears have always been and always will be (see chicken little). Baseless fears are also known as irrational. Christians think the apocalypse is just around the corner. You could join them in their efforts to stock up with provisions and ammo.

Hey look, no one is saying you shouldn't have concerns and voice those concerns. Telling us that the sky is falling however is a waste of time. It is presumptuous and arrogant and assumes that only if we follow your view of the world will we avoid the abyss. BS

 

[corplinx]

The problem is the shoe in mouth issue. Janice Rogers Brown was an unfit, extremist, right wing, etc, etc. When you rubber stamp her for your compromise, you take the sting out of that rhetoric. Pretty soon you will be the boy who cried wolf.

What I find petty about this whole thing is that its basically about Roe V. Wade. All of these nominees were being put in farm positions for the supreme. All of them are likely to vote for overturning Roe V. Wade.

I have no problems with them confirming anti-Roe V Wade judges as long as they are anti-Roe V Wade for the right reasons. Trying to "overturn abortion" is the wrong reason. The courts shouldn't be full of people afraid to academically dissent with precedent and the democrats have made their point here. The point to Bush is if they will do this for lower positions, just wait until its for the supreme court.

Yes, I do realize republicans dissent against roe-v-wade not for academic reasons but for outcomes. They don't want second and third trimester abortions. The hardest core don't want day after abortions. So of course, Bush will appoint people who disagree with Roe-V-Wade whether it be good or bad reasons. We can't turn these judges down out of hand just for disagreeing with that decision, nor should we out of hand dismiss them just because they are tools of an agenda.

 

[BPSCG]

All I see is the dems gave in - not all the way, but the towel is in hand - and the far right like PFAW and the like don't give a rats a** about compromise.

People For the American Way is a far-right group?

Who knew?

But sometimes you can be such a pompous ass. It's a forum not an Ivy league college class room, get over yourself.

I went to Ithaca College - the Ithaca, NY school that isn't Ivy League.

Ready for a clue -

CLUE - Patriot Act!

What parts of the USAPatriot Act do you find objectionable? I'm sure you don't mean every last word of the thing, do you?

 

[varwoche]

Now that didn't take long...

In the afterglow of the bipartisan accord announced Monday night to avert a Senate showdown on changing the filibuster rule, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist emphasized Tuesday that he wasn’t a party to the deal and would quickly try to implement the rule change if Democrats resumed use of the filibuster to derail President Bush’s judicial nominees.

article

 

[jj]

For all your grousing about the uneducated, unconcerned electorate,

Assertion not in evidence, once again JOCKO MAKES IT ALL UP.

it's elitist leftist snobs that keep shooting their own movement in the foot with statements precisely like this one.

Assertion not in evidence, ONCE AGAIN JOCKO MAKES IT ALL UP.

I think it's clear, folks, Jocko is a hit-man (rhetorical, I presume, only) for the fascist right.

 

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Jocko
For all your grousing about the uneducated, unconcerned electorate,

Assertion not in evidence, once again JOCKO MAKES IT ALL UP.

Jocko's perfectly capable of defending himself, but he was responding to this statement of Magyar's:

In the context of the movie Padme's point is EXACTLY the same, that an uneducated, unconcerned electorate will give away their freedom without ever blinking an eye, because they are clueless as to what they are giving up!

Emphasis mine. How is responding to someone's claim, using his own words, making an "assertion not in evidence"?

 

[Jocko]

Assertion not in evidence, ONCE AGAIN JOCKO MAKES IT ALL UP.

I think it's clear, folks, Jocko is a hit-man (rhetorical, I presume, only) for the fascist right.

Thanks to BPSCG for picking up the first point. JJ's strong point has never been his attention span. He's more an example of the inverse ratio between the size of the mouth and the size of the brain.

And as long as he insists of trying to catch me out, that assertion will ALWAYS be in evidence.

As to the second issue - that the far left (you know, people like JJ) are harming their own putative cause, I think the ever-shrinking minority in government aligning with increasingly shrill hatred (again, from people like JJ) is obviously no coincidence.

Unless you're the type of person who thinks falling out of a boat and getting wet are completely isolated incidents.

Keep on screaming, JJ, you still have 45 more senate seats to lose.

Edited to add:
For point of reference, my angst-ridden little friend, keep in mind that if I'm a rhetorical hitman, that makes you a rhetorical suicide. I'd also like to remind you that this is the point where you start tossing around phrases like "cease and desist" and "stalker." Get busy, kid.

 

[CBL4]

I took a collective bargaining course when I was in college; the professor was a professional labor relations mediator. He liked to say that one of the signs of a good labor agreement is when neither side is completely happy. Means they both had to give up some of what they wanted to get the rest of what they wanted.

I think that this illustrates what is wrong in labor relations and also in politics. Human interactions should not be a zero-sum game. A good agreement is one in which both sides are happy.

Unfortunately, we are so accustom to thinking about winners and losers, we fail to realize that everyone in most cases everyone can win. Everytime I buy groceries, I win and the store wins. This is a typical interaction.

For politicians, it is anathema to admit this. They act more like Russian's in a old joke.

A Russian finds a bottle with a genie in it. The genie say "You can have one wish but whatever you wish for, your neighbor will get two of them." The Russian thinks for a second and says "Poke out one of my eyes."

CBL

 

[aerocontrols]

People For the American Way is a far-right group?

Who knew?

Yeah, that assertion made me choke on my Cheetos.

 

[BPSCG]

A Russian finds a bottle with a genie in it. The genie say "You can have one wish but whatever you wish for, your neighbor will get two of them." The Russian thinks for a second and says "Poke out one of my eyes."

Variations:

1) Two wishes, and his worst enemy gets double.

"Give me a 125-pound woman and half a marriage certificate."

2) One wish, and his worst enemy gets double.

"Beat me half to death."

Then there was the short story in Playboy a million years ago* where the Devil offers the guy the same deal. He asks for a woman that is so hot it is all he can do to accomodate her sexual demands.

*...I read it for the articles...

 

[jj]

Thanks to BPSCG for picking up the first point. JJ's strong point has never been his attention span. He's more an example of the inverse ratio between the size of the mouth and the size of the brain.

Typical vilification. BP does have a point, the words were used, of course not in quite the same way you appear to me (at least) to use them, but then again, taking people and re-emphasizing what they say has always been your game, hasn't it?

Of course, if you look at the way the terms describing the electorate were used, you find two different uses, with two different degrees of intent. Oh, imagine that. What a shock! How astounding!

Amazing. Once again, JOCKO MAKES IT ALL UP.

This time BP helps him out.

And as long as he insists of trying to catch me out, that assertion will ALWAYS be in evidence.

Yes, again, you're shown twisting people's words into something else. Imagine my surprise.

As to the second issue - that the far left (you know, people like JJ) are harming their own putative cause, I think the ever-shrinking minority in government aligning with increasingly shrill hatred (again, from people like JJ) is obviously no coincidence.

A lie, since I'm a moderate. Vilification, since the "far left" is being demonized, argument from power "shrinking minority"..

Jocko, the list of your rhetorical abuses is starting to read like some of your buddys here.

Keep on screaming, JJ, you still have 45 more senate seats to lose.

Disparagement and baiting, more rhetorical shennigans.

Do you have anything of substance to offer?

Edited to add:
For point of reference, my angst-ridden little friend, keep in mind that if I'm a rhetorical hitman, that makes you a rhetorical suicide. I'd also like to remind you that this is the point where you start tossing around phrases like "cease and desist" and "stalker." Get busy, kid.

Cease and desist, vilifying stalker.

 

[shecky]

Yet more political nonsense.

A filibuster seems as much a compromise as the agreement not to filibuster. Why shouldn't a particular party be able to filibuster over any particular candidate if it feels necessary?