• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Obama's Nuclear OptionS

Except that Obama is not calling for the nuclear "option". Of course that is over here in the fact based world, I have no idea what is going in your world.

Daredelvis
 
And the right continues to shift whatever it happens to mean by "nuclear option." I'm pretty sure the official definition is now, "anything any Democrat anywhere ever wants to do."
 
This is the so-called nuclear option, BAC.

"In U.S. politics, the nuclear option is an attempt by a majority of the United States Senate to end a filibuster by invoking a point of order to essentially declare the filibuster unconstitutional which can be decided by a simple majority, rather than seeking formal cloture with a supermajority of 60 senators."

Obama has not called for that. Instead, he's called for Reconciliation on the health care bill. Reconciliation is not the "nuclear option".

From the Wiki link above:
"During the 111th congress, opponents of Democratic legislative initiatives incorrectly began to refer to the budget reconciliation process as the nuclear option.[6] For a discussion of the legislatively-enacted reconciliation process, which only requires a majority vote, but which - unlike the nuclear option - does not alter Senate rules, see Reconciliation (United States Congress)."
 
um....the nuclear option declares a perfectly legal filibuster to be "illegal". this is not what Obama is proposing.

Obama is proposing to use reconciliation to pass health-care reform. this takes a previously passed Senate bill, which ALREADY beat a filibuster, and having that bill passed by the House and then amended by the Senate.

this is NOT...the Nuclear Option.
 
parky76 said:
this is NOT...the Nuclear Option.
Click to expand...

Well, yes, but that's only true in the reality-influenced world.

Who knows what "nuclear option" means inside BAC's head? (Certainly not BAC.... I'll bet BAC pronounces it "nu-klu-ler," too.)
 
Iran, as a member of the UN, is perfectly within its rights to develop nuclear technology per the "Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty", so long as it doesn't use nuclear technology in a weaponized form.
 
The True Scotsman said:
Iran, as a member of the UN, is perfectly within its rights to develop nuclear technology per the "Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty", so long as it doesn't use nuclear technology in a weaponized form.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's the third pillar of the treaty.

Speaking of the NPT, will the U.S. and other nuclear powers ever comply with the second pillar (disarmament)? IMO, as long as disarmament isn't a part of our arms policy, we are in violation of the treaty we're attempting to use to justify a possible intervention in Iran.

Interestingly, one of Obama's "nuclear options" is to redefine the purpose of our nuclear weapons as deterrence only--a shift from Bush era policy that actually considered other uses for them. Obama has missed his own deadline for his Nuclear Posture Review.

Maybe this is what BaC means by the term "nuclear options"?
 
Dang. I was hoping this would be about college football.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom