Friday Open Thread
Consumer spending up as inflation eases - sounds decent.
U.S. to allow key detainees to request lawyers
This is an Open Thread.
Submitted by Ender on Fri, 2007-09-28 08:15
Tags:
Consumer spending up as inflation eases - sounds decent.
U.S. to allow key detainees to request lawyers
This is an Open Thread.
Comments :
more new articles on Newt Gingrich
Gloomy GOP can benefit Gingrich
from Newsweek:
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
11 Candidates!?
Ender, do you realize that if Newt jumps in, that would mean the (R)s would have 11 "mainstream" candidates running for office? You started with 10 I think. You would think that the further you get into the debate season, the smaller the field would become. At this rate you guys will have 15 candidates going into Iowa.
I also think its time to start slimming the field down on both sides. Grandpa Gravel should perhaps drop out--especially after his "I-ran-up-90,000-in-credit-because-they-deserved-it" tirade at their last debate. I say there should be five on each side.
http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678 Brawl: 2277-7051-2186
Running a campaign must be lucrative
since no one seems willing to drop out of the field.
Newt for President......... hahhahahahaha! He was having an affair, and cheating on his wife, while he was leading the charge to prosecute Clinton for having an affair and cheating on his wife.
Isn't Newt the one that brought divorce papers to his wife's bedside in the hospital, while she was undergoing cancer treatment.
I'm only half stupid
well
mainstream does not necessarily equate to "top" and it's only top candidates that will eventually matter. I think after Iowa/NH a bunch of people will drop out and everything will be fine. Of course the debates are pretty messy in the mean time.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
It is kind of interesting
One advantage republicans have had in presidential races as long as I've been alive is that they have had pretty much a designated nominee. Their primaries have mostly been about exploring issues rather than actually picking someone because everyone knows who has been picked by the party and that's just that.
This is the first time in my memory that there's really been a question. And it's kind of interesting to see some of the dynamics of that novelty play out.
For one thing a number of republicans are opening their dirty little playbooks of campaign tricks a mite bit early and using them on other republicans. The righteous indignation this causes is pretty funny, seeing as these same people are mum when it isn't their candidate being slandered.
Just interesting.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
was Reagan a done deal
in '79? Was Dole in 96? Bush had a fight on his hands from McCain. It wasn't always certain even in recent times. But yes, it is wide open now and is definitely more fun.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Reagan and dole
Reagan? Yeah he was pretty much a shoo-in in 79. Consider that his only rival to speak of was Bush. When the votes were counted Reagan had almost 2000. Bush had 13.
I think a 150:1 advantage is pretty much a done deal :)
Here's the wiki on Dole:
here
Compare those results to say the dems in 1984 where the tally was
obviously a much closer contest. Hell in 1980 the dems had a sitting president who still faced a prety serious primary opponent (Ted Kennedy). Granted it was Carter whose presidency was less than spectacular, but clearly the dem primaries are traditionally more of a contest and the rep primaries are more of a, I guess the best term would be "show and dance."
This time it's almost reversed. Hillary looks to be pretty much a shoo in (note "looks to be") where as the reps are having a knock-down-drag-em-out.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
An Interesting Fact
Your post reminded me of this rather interesting fact:
Since 1976 there has been either a Bush or Dole on the Republican ticket. See:
76: Ford/Dole
80: Reagan/Bush
84: Reagan/Bush
88: Bush/Quayle
92: Bush/Quayle
96: Dole/Kemp
00: Bush/Cheney
04: Bush/Cheney
That really smacks of legacy to me. I'm wondering if Jeb Bush will be the dark horse choice for VP. The thing is that with Hillary Clinton being the presumptive Democrat, we could possibly see:
Bush/Clinton/Clinton/Bush/Bush/Clinton
Which would make me even more ill.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Gravel
The thing about Gravel is that the cure is worse than the disease. If you start excluding him from debates, then people starting thinking he's being unfairly silenced. It's best to just let him sit up there and make a fool of himself.
I honestly cringe when I hear them say his name, because I know the response will be out of left field.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
So why is it that Hillary and the other misfits ...
running on the Democrat side won't commit to having troops out of Iraq by the end of their first term? Aren't these the leaders of the party calling for a definite timeline to pull out?
What are they afraid of?
Or have they just been lying to the American people (again) all along on the whole withdrawal thing? Aren't they serious about getting out? Is this just a political game to them?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I don't get it either
it seemed like an easy enough question with an easy enough answer considering the mood of the Democratic Party and the country as a whole.
What do they know that we don't?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Thank you Ender & GoRight. We liberals embrace you
when you come out as you both just have and say you think that America should withdraw from Iraq and that the war was a stupid move by our current (Vice) President.
Could you please have a word with your political leaders so that they too can spread the good news?
I think you need to go back and read that again ...
what we (or at least I) said was that the Democrats say that the American People want us to withdraw and that they won the 2006 election because of this issue.
Given this, I just think that it is sort of curious why the Democrat Presidential candidates are running away from making a commitment to do something so in line with what the Democrat leadership claims the will of the people is.
Can you please explain why they would (from their rhetorical and policy perspectives) throw the country under the bus like that?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4That is what Democrats do
As I hinted downthread, the Democrats make a living out of throwing their base under a bus. I get that you don't understand this since the Republicans keep their base happy at nearly all costs.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
It's is always stupid to let goppers
define the battlezone.
Which is exactly what you are doing.
The goppers lost the election because of Iraq, yes but part of that has been the constant lies the President put forth as the reason we diverted our military front from Afganistan to Iraq. The constant lies.
That and rampant uncheck GOP corruption starting with Jack Abramoff and sweet little Jesus lovin' Jack Reed who, lied to the Indians, and stole their money and used to to fund the GOP campaign by filtering the money through the Dept of theh Interior.
Plus the flagrant abuse of earmarks and pork barrel spending that allowed Duke Cunningham to steal tax payers money to buy some stuff and give special favors to military contracters.
Plus the abuse of the public trust by NOT honoring the residents of New Orleans.
Plus the ugly expensive medicare program.
Plus no child left behind that is underfunded and a ridiculous crony contract to rewrite school books and give a special contract to the 'right' kind of bookrighters.
Plus the enormous waste of billions and billions of tax payer dollars to private contracters in New Orleans and IRaq.
Plus the erosion of civil liberties, habeous corpus.
So it is about Iraq, yes......... but in the larger context of rampant bullying and exortion of the public trust by members of Congress who say the are Republicans.
Plus the GOP inflated housing market, cause the GOP just doesn't do regulation and now the world markets see a decline in the dollar and a credit crunch.
The biggest failure for democrats, is that no one democratic leader has taken the initiative to explain that once we are in this godawful mess in IRaq, fighting a war for the children of Israel, that is nearly impossible to get out, especially after the we have used billions of tax payer dollars to turn a killers residence into the US Embassy in Iraq, the largest in the world, plus the 14 military bases.
Al Queda in Iraq......... it is so cool to say that now, if you are in the military.
So the question now becomes would you rather have a reasonable democrat who believes in consultation with the world to help solve problems like we see in Iran and Pakistan.
Or would you rather have a neanderthal Republican who says my bombs are twice as big as yours, and I will triple the size of Gitmo.
I'm only half stupid
This explains why Democrats throw people under the bus?
Sorry, but I can't see how this applies to my topic.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4oh well
I'm only half stupid
americans aren't strongly enough in favor of withdrawl
it's just that simple.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
WTF?
Aren't the Democrats running around saying that they have a mandate to get the troops out based on their 2006 electoral victory? I seem to be hearing a lot of that from Reid and Pelosi. Is it just a lie and political gaming?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Well
why don't you post the quotes of them saying that.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Here's a smattering, no more time to waste on it ...
anyone who denies that the Democrats have been claiming that the main reason they were elected in 2006 was the Iraq War and getting us out is sadly mistaken.
ELECTION 2006
America's referendum on war
Pelosi's countdown: She ticks off a list of changes, including a new Iraq strategy
Reid, Pelosi Call On President To Listen To The Will Of The American People On Iraq
:
Reid And Pelosi Renew Call For President To Work With Congress On Changing Course In Iraq
Congress Puts Its Marker on Iraq War, but How Big?
Here's one from Biden:
Statement on Rumsfeld's Resignation, President's Press Conference and Iraq
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Naturally you miss the point
I was trying to guide you to something-
notice how the latest of your quotes is from june of this year? The PR offensive for the petraeus report really started this summer.
The question you missed was when they made those claims.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
And the fact that we are in Sept, 2007
changes the fact that by their own account they were elected primarily on the issue of getting the troops out of Iraq how? So if that was their mandate and they disavow that now, how is that not throwing America under the bus?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Go back to my original statement. -nt.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
The one that doesn't address the point of the question?
Trying to run us back through this loop won't change that, you know.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I've pointed you in the direction
not my fault if you won't or can't actually go.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
What benefit is there to covering the same ground again?
The result will be the same: you whining and trying to avoid anwsering the questions. Why are you afraid to give an honest and direct answer?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4The Strategy of Least-Worst
The Democrats are using the least-worst strategy again that lost them the last two presidential elections. After they successfully pinned 2000 on Nader, they know that there is no way in hell any liberal Democrats are going to jump ship and vote for a Green or liberal independent. They continue to stake out a "moderate" (read: cowardly) position on troop withdraw because they know they've got the anti-war vote already sewn up. They had it in 2004 when Kerry was arguably to the right of Bush on Iraq.
Democrats also like to talk about Bush attempting to run out the clock. What they don't mention is that being fully invested in Iraq is paramount for them to make gains in congress. Notice how the Democratic senators cry about needing 67 votes to end the war when they really only need 41 (filibuster spending bills). They're trying to say that the voters need to kick out their Republican congressmen so they can finally end the war. Of course, by 2008 we'll have a new President, so this line of reasoning is pretty faulty.
So in answer to your last question, yes this is a political game to them. It's also a political game to the Republicans, who are essentially setting up the Democrats to be the fall guys when our troops are inevitably pulled out. People are dying for partisan dick-waving. It's truly the most horrific thing I've seen.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
You know, I think that this is pretty accurate.
Interstingly enough, I keep trying to push them (the Democrats) to make good on their promises to keep them from moving right (to the center). Good analysis in my opinion.
On the 41 votes to sustain a filibuster, I keep remembering in the back of my mind that there is a Senate rule against filibustering Appropriations Bills, but I can't ever figure out of these supplemental spending bills are considered Appropriations Bills or not. If not then you are correct. An excellent point!
The also have the vaunted "Nucelar Option" if they were serious enough because they only need 51 votes to change the filibuster rules ... and since they are the majority they already have that many votes.
In the end, though, they would need to be able to over-ride the inevitable Bush veto which they most likely could not sustain.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +451 votes?
No they don't. There are 49 Democrats in the Senate. And the one "Independent Democrat" is farther to the right than several Republicans, so you can't count on his vote.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Yes thank you
The biggest mistake the dems make in a debate is letting the R's frame it.
I'm only half stupid
I stand corrected.
I forgot about the 2 independents ... but they caucus with the Democrats so they must have at least some affinity for their perspective, right?
Besides, you're discounting the RINO votes...
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4There was an article in today's SF Chronicle that
spoke of the need to have 41 Senators in order to filibuster legislation. I can't find the link, but it went on to say that because the Senate has 2 seats for every state, with the current population statistics, that it could take Senators representing only 11% of the total population to stop popular bills from being enacted.
Think about it. What if 88% of the population supported something and the 41 Senators from the smallest populations states vote against it, or rather refuse to call an end to debate on a bill, thus killing it.......How is that representative in any way?
Now, right now the 41 Senators that have successfully killed numerous bills over the last couple of weeks, don't represent only the smallest states. You have Texas, half of Florida and a couple of other medium states in there.
But....Take a look. Right now we have probably 25 to maybe 30% of the population running what get's enacted and what doesn't. That's a Super Minority telling the majority to go suck eggs.
It was an interesting thought.
Same as it was with the Democrats in the Minority ...
There is a reason that they created the Senate AND the House in Congress. The House is intended to be the guardian of the people's rights and the Senate is the guardian of the state's rights. The senate was created the way it was precisely to prevent mob rule over the minority. It worked for the Democrats so don't complain that it is working for us.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4which ignores the rampant abuse
of the filibuster by the GOP who have treated it as the norm instead of the extreme reaction.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Just like the Democrats did when they were the minority.
Unless I am mistaken, they STILL hold the record for having used it the most, correct? Future projections being beside the point since that's kind of like counting chickens before they're hatched.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Uhhh. no you are wrong AGAIN.
This session of Congress. Republicans have used the threat of a filibuster (as of 7/18/07 as per this McClatchy News article
) 42 times and were on track to use it 153 times by the end of the session. The highest previous total was 58 times.
Damn you can lie. You should:
A) run for political office as a Republican.
B) write copy for Phaux News
C) blog whatever dumb and misquoted thing that comes into your head.
Which is it gonna be?
Can you not read?
So, if we examine the number of filibusters ACTUALLY USED at this point in time (actually July 18) the number was at 42. The record being 58 which was set by the Democrats.
In fact, if we look at the record for the Democrats during their time in the minority under Bush we see that they used more filibusters EVERY YEAR than any Congress used in ANY years previous to Bush. A distinction that THIS Congress has/had yet to attain, I might add.
Why do you think that I put that second sentence in there? Because I had already seen this information and I knew that some one of you would want to try and make a point of it, falsely claiming that this somehow demonstrates that we have already surpassed the Democrat record, which we have not as far as I know.
If you want to show that we have you have to come up with a more current reference that lists actual filibusters not imaginary ones.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4History lesson
The two highest congresses are the 106th and 107th. The democrats controlled the senate during one of those (the 107th).
Wow? Everyone hear that? Goright just foreswore ever making a prediction about the future ever again. Sweet.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Actually, I foreswore Democrats ever making predictions.
:)
So, just so I understand correctly, you are saying that the Democrats SET the record of 58 in the 106th Congress and the Republicans tied that record in the 107th?
Having you around is like having my own research staff. Thanks!
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I don't know why I bother with GR.
You are a Freeper more than you are interesting or fun.
The stat I used was from 7/18/07. It's now 9/28/07. Repubs clearly have exceeded the 58 laid down by previous generations (although honestly I don't have the current stat).
And what is it Repubs have tried to accomplish? Do they think that the bills brought forth are bad? NO! All they really intend to show is that a Democratic controlled Senate and House wasn't able to accomplish much at all. And who's fault is that? Democrats? That's like blaming black people for slavery in the United States!
Added later - to the management....Thanks for editing my reply. it was in poor taste and I appreciate what you did by wiping my comments.
How convenient for you ...
Get back to me when you do, ok? Imaginery filibusters still don't count.
Exactly what the Democrats did in the minority.
Gee, sorry I missed it.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I'm not. It was ugly.
I'm sorry to say that I can see from my actions that it wasn't beneath me. That dissapoints me in my own eyes.
I guess we all have our crosses to bear.
In actuality ...
I really am sorry that my views and positions get under your skin so much. But unfortunately I believe what I believe and I am not going to change it just to make you or your friends more comfortable.
Please accept that my discontent is not with you personally.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Actual number of cloture votes
Sorry GR, but the record has been broken
. We're up to 61 now. But heck, with only 15 months left to go, they're not going to break it by that much, eh?
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
different counts
using that source the last congress had 68 cloture motions (my guess is that the discrepency with the McClatchy story come because of multiple motions to end a single filibuster).
I'm sure GR will cling to the technicality like a life preserver.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Hey if we break the record, we break the record.
It's just politics and the need to check the Democrat madness.
But I see no reason to concede that we broke the record before we ACTUALLY broke the record. You sure as he** wouldn't.
But thanks for keeping things honest! Good research staff. Have a cookie.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Actually
*I* don't have a problem with projections based on current trends and rates. In fact a hell of a lot of my work is based on just that. It's one thing to add a caveat that the rate or trend might change due to unforeseen circumstances.
Quite another to just deny it has any meaning at all.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
The meanings of rates of change are fine for
predictable phenomena. Are you really contending that the rate of filibusters is contant? Are you really contending that we can predict the number of issues which will be introduced over the next 3/4 of the term is that predicatable?
I don't think you can say so with any credibility. I mean, come on. There's no justification to say that the rate of filibusters will remain contant for a year and a half. If you really feel that you can provide a credible rationale for why such a prediction should be viewed as credible I would really like to hear it.
EDIT:
I assume that you will agree that we haven't actually broken the record until, well, we have actually filibustered more bills that the Democrats have, right? Making a prediction doesn't make it true, right?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Rationale
How's this for rationale? If we look back at the cloture stats for past congresses
, there is never any huge disparity between the number of votes during the first year and the number during the second year, based on a cursory glance at the tables on those pages. I looked back about 20 years, then got bored. In most cases, it appeared that there were more during the second year, but rarely by much. So, using the documented behavior of past congresses as a rationale, it is not at all unreasonable to project that the current congress will end up with approximately twice the number of filibusters as they will have at the end of their first year. Since we are not done with the first year yet, we can with confidence say that it is likely that they will end up with at least double their current total. That blows past totals out of the water already, and is a conservative estimate, based on no more filibusters for the remainder of this year (which I am sure you will admit is pretty unlikely).
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Well, as Tlaloc keeps pointing out ...
Cloture votes are not filibusters, so cloture vote trends say nothing about filibuster trends. As we have seen, there are 16 unaccounted for filibusters beyond what we have seen in the cloture votes.
This is all moot, though. If they pass the record as your predict then you can legitimately claim that they have set the record. Until they actually set the record why should I have to concede that they have? With all due respect to you and Tlaloc, that's kind of a "duh" thing to have to ask.
Stop saying that they have done more filibusters than the Democrats until they have ACTUALLY done more filibusters than the Democrats and then I won't be able to call you liars.
You're both being like the little kids on a car ride, "Are we there yet?" :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Unique bill from SL's reference.
I extracted the unique measure identifiers from SL's reference. The total was 26. That's a far cry from 42, maybe I should double check the data in your
graph? :)
[ Yes, I know that there may be bills that are being filibustered
which have never had a cloture vote and thus wouldn't appear here. ]
Here are the results:
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Once again different counts. -nt
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Agreed.
But it IS a far cry for 42, so why should I just accept that there are 16 measures in the Senate just sitting around because of the threat of a filibuster? If they are not important enough to even get a cloture vote, what does that say? If they have never even had a cloture vote, how can you say that they are truly being filibustered?
There's a lot of wiggle room left even in the 42 number it seems.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Discrepancies
I believe the totals in the graph are filibusters on legislation specifically, so it does not include things like resolutions, "sense of Congress" votes, and nominee votes. I'm happy to go with the full totals as provided in the tables I've linked to, as far as any further discussion of this topic goes. (If there is in fact any need for further discussion.)
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Hold on here a minute...
You post got me to thinking, if you guys can't find the number of actual filibusters how did these McClatchy guys get the numbers. So I went back and read the article again and found this:
WTF? So what are these numbers in this graph, cloture votes or filibusters? If they are actually cloture votes then that changes this whole discussion. If they are equating cloture votes with filibusters in the 42 number but the other figures in the chart actually ARE filibusters somehow then the graph is totally bogus as is the supposed rate of filibustering.
If the other figures in the chart are actually cloture votes then the graph is mislabeled and the McClatchy people are just morons.
I leave it as an exercise for SL and Tlaloc to figure out which is the case, or kindness if he is still in on this.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Using the cloture info for the 109th Congress (both years)
I come up with the following unique identifiers for 47 measures. How does that line up with the graph? The graph seems to indicate 52. WTF? I did this quickly and need to go, please check it.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Bogus McClatchy stats on filibusters?
The McClatchy chart used and championed as an illustration of how the GOP is abusing filibusters is starting to look more and more bogus. I am not leveling that charge just yet, however.
After reading the graph and article
more clearly it has become obvious that the graph itself is reporting, actually purporting to report, the number of cloture votes not the number of times a filibuster is used. The distinction is not insignificant:
Based on the data provided by the Senate
on the number of cloture votes in many of the most recent Congresses (hat tip SL), I am having difficulty reproducing the data shown in the McClatchy chart, so I plan to reproduce my own chart based on the data provided by the Senate.
Stay tuned for more information as it develops!
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4You're half right
You need 67 votes to change senate rules. The backdoor "Nuclear Option" stuff is against the rules of the senate. If it wasn't good for the Republicans it's not good for the Democrats.
As others have commented, the senate is nominally controlled by the Democrats. It's pretty much 50-50 as the newest neoconservative Joe Lieberman votes with the Republicans on most Iraq/defense bills.
With respect to filibustering appropriations, you may want to check if it's against the rules to filibuster motions to proceed. Republicans have often filibustered motions to proceed to bills or amendments rather than filibuster the bill or amendment itself.
Ending the war is as simple as failing to pass appropriations for the war. All this talk about the troops suddenly running out of food or ammo is ridiculous. That is only if you assume Bush isn't crazy enough to play chicken with them. One would assume a rational commander would keep his troops safe if he was unsure as to their safety, but I'm not convinced Bush would withdraw/redeploy them if he didn't have the funds. It's in the realm of possibility that he'd simply draw funds from other departments, relying on some crazy interpretation of the constitution.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Technically correct, but practically not so much ...
It may be outside the formal rules established by the Senate itself, but it is completely within the rules established in the Constitution. So from a technical standpoint you are correct, from a practical standpoint it is moot. A simple majority CAN change the rules in the Senate under the constitution. This is why the "Nuclear Option" is also called the "Consitutional Option".
I'm not arguing whether it would be "good" for the Senate, I am arguing that the Democrats have it as an option if they are truly serious, which they do.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Buh-jeebus!
Holy jumpin mother of god in a side car with chocolate jimmies and a lobster bib! (to quote Sam and Max).
who says war crimes never pay?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
It's a good day for Democrats...
Between John Doolittle being subpoena'd for taking bribes from Abramoff
, to
the republicans who tried to steal California electoral college votes giving up their disgraceful vote grabbing scheme
, to
the White House officially slamming Rush Limbaugh for calling US soldiers who are democrats or don't support the war in Iraq "phony soldiers".
Ahhh....just let me bask in the warmth & glow of goodness. There's only one more cherry to top the dessert that will bring a visceral reaction to many here...
President Hillary Clinton. Just say that one over and over a few times.....Ahhhhhhhh.
Happy Friday =)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I can't say that "President Hillary" makes me happy
that's pretty much the definition of lesser evil.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Me either.
But I do appreciate the visceral reaction....
Ah.
that's all GR. Ender has actually said he thinks she's probably the best of the dem candidates (unless I'm remembering wrong).
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I think he was referring to your visceral reaction, not mine.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Since Global Warming has become a religion ...
should the separation of church and state apply?
I know, I know. There goes GoRight again. :)
But here is a story that sort of raises that question:
Hey, if passing this crap out is tried here in the US ... actually students ARE forced to watch the Gore movie ... maybe we should demand that they also be forced to watch The Great Global Warming Swindle
, which debunks Gore's movie entirely. I watched it and thought is was very well done. Give it a watch when you have time.
Did Gore donate all of those copies of the film or did someone make some CA$H off of the Global Warming deceit yet again? Geeze, what a racket.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4You ever heard of education?
You know where they teach people to clean up after themselves. As in don't throw cigarette butts out the window, or your lunch MacDonald's sack.
There is something to be said for keeping a clean house so your neighbor doesn't have to smell the stink. It is just good manners.
It is also good manners to respect the source from whence we get all the good things we enjoy here in this world, the planet we live on.
I for one don't think you have to be a religous zealot to understand that dumping crank case oil into the river might kill a few fish. Multiply that times several billion and you can see that teaching good respectful habits is a matter of courtesy to the planet we live on. The problem is that we have to ask some corporations to be good citizens.
I'm only half stupid
What does this have to do with the main point here?
Global Warming?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Damn you're full of it.
Tin foil hats. You got the market cornered. You believe:
1) human induced global warming is a myth.
2) Bill & Hillary actively murdered people.
3) evolution is a myth
4) that dubya served with distinction during the Vietnam war and John Kerry was a coward and a traitor.
5) that additional tax cuts to the rich will increase tax revenue.
6) that Rush Limbaugh doesn't like Dominican prostitutes (in deference to you, I left out the pre-teen)
7) that gay marriage defiles the sanctity of hetero marriage.
8) just about anything and everything you see printed over at Townhall.com, LGF, Michelle Malkin or AtlasShruggs site.
You are a sorry guy sometimes. But I don't feel any pity for you. You're angry and frustrated and you've built it up and brought it all upon your own psychie. Enjoy the house you've built yourself.
Hey, that's a pretty good list ...
And given your point #8, I'm in good company too!
Given your obviously partisan blinders, I recognize the inflammatory wording of these points for what it is. My only quibbles on accuracy here would be:
2) I never claimed that they actually killed anyone. I was just bringing some interesting theories to people's attention. :)
3) I haven't said that I don't believe in evolution, I have only argued that people of faith should not be dismissed just because they have a religious mindset which is a different point.
6) I don't know what Rush thinks of protitutes, Dominican, pre-teen, or any other kind. I just argue that you don't either.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4#3
I'll defer to Andrew Sullivan on this one:
Those who believe that the earth was created 6,000 years ago and that human life has not evolved from more primitive forms are people I cannot engage with in civil discourse. To posit faith in things unprovable and unknowable is one thing. To posit faith in something demonstrably falsifiable is another. I simply have no tolerance for creationism or for those who enable it. Creationists are as much an insult to reasonable Christians as they are to rational thought. And they perpetuate the notion that religious faith is indistinguishable from idiocy.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
The contention that the Earth was created 6000 years ago ...
or even 5 minutes ago is NOT demonstrably false as long as you are willing to allow for the existence of an omnipotent meta-physical being ... something that is inherently part of a creationist's belief system.
So, unless you are willing to deny people their religious beliefs you cannot claim that the Earth and everything on it was not created a mere 6,000 years ago, or even 5 minutes ago for that matter.
We have had lengthy discussions on this in the past.*
The basics of the argument are as follows:
So, even though scientific data and observations based on the known laws of physics may predict that the universe is billions of years old, that does not imply that the universe could not have been created a mere 5 minutes ago with an initial state that would make it appear, based on the physical laws put in place at that time, that the universe was actually much older. The same goes for physical structures, people, the positions of galaxies within the cosmos, etc.
----------------------------------------------------------
* Reading Assignment:
When you have a chance read through the following threads and let me know what you think:
Who is rejecting conclusions?
The best parts are quite a ways down in thread referenced above.
GoRight might suggest
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4By the criteria you put forth
... nothing can be shown to be demonstrably false. If you wish to be able to invoke the will of God to dispel one piece of scientific evidence, then you cannot object to it being used to dispel any piece of scientific evidence.
There are plenty of religious and spiritual beliefs that do not directly contradict scientific facts. Creationism is not one of them.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
You are right, but you are also wrong.
This is true.
This is not true as the argument above demonstrates.
Anything and everything can have been created at any point in the past and we would never be able to tell the difference, ergo if the universe were created only 5 minutes ago but the initial state and the laws of physics predicted it was 6 billion years old the two are not in conflict. We would not be able to tell the difference. From our perspective, the universe is 6 billion years old whether it truly is or not. If you want to believe in Creationism and the claim that the universe was created 6,000 years ago, go ahead because it doesn't change anything.
Challenge to illustrate the point:
I think that you know the answer already. So if you can't prove these things scientifically, how can you say with certainty that they do not exist or that they did not happen?
This is true, but it is focused on the wrong side of the argument, I think.
My point is more along the line that you can't use physical evidence and science based on the physical laws of the universe to prove or disprove anything about the existence or actions of an omnipotent meta-physical being. For example, you can't use carbon dating or cosmology to prove that a meta-physical being didn't create the universe 6,000 years ago or even 5 minutes ago, can you?
I think that is the other side of the same coin from your statement. The one implies the other.
This point should be obvious given the definition of science and the scientific method. But the fact that science rejects the notion of meta-physical occurances doesn't mean that they don't exist. Science is rejecting them, not because they have been proven to be non-existent, but rather because there is no way for science to say anything about them. So in the end science moves on as if they didn't exist, even though they might.
That's why its called faith.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Re:
Ahh, proving a negative. As we know, this is nearly impossible in most contexts.
No, because by definition a meta-physical being exists outside of the tools of science. Note: I don't think we're disagreeing here by the rest of your post.
I'll include what Sullivan was responding to:
We ridicule people who believe absurd things for non-religious reasons all the time, and nobody bats an eye. Think about how the media represent believers in alien abductions -- if you believe that aliens in UFOs are currently invisibly abducting thousands of Americans, you're branded a lunatic. If you believe that God is planning to invisibly abduct millions of Americans a few years from now (and that you will be among the elect), you have a good shot at a political career in the South.
There is at least a double standard here. You can't disprove the existence of alien abductions (yet), just as you can't disprove the existence of God. Somehow if you're talking about God, you get a pass for being branded a kook.
And I have every right to suggest that anyone who has beliefs that are little short of madness should be taken lightly.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
RE: Re:
True enough, I suppose, but this is a dodge of an answer. The point is that you can't disprove the existence of God for the exact same reason that you can't prove the existence of God. Namely, you have no way to determine anything about God one way or the other.
Yes, I think we are agreed on this point.
It's not a double standard, actually. The presumed aliens are part of the known universe and can (or could at least), in fact, be studied using science and the tools of science. A meta-physical being cannot.
There is a difference between ridiculing someone for ignoring science where science can be used and ridiculing someone for believing in something that science cannot assess. I don't find this to be an insignificant distinction, maybe you do?
Yes, you have this right, I suppose. But I likewise have the right to point out that your reasoning is faulty in that regard. Anyone who wants to try and use physical evidence to suggest that the universe is older than 5 minutes or 6,000 years is just as mad, correct? (See our point of agreement above)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Creationism
You are correct as regards your formulation of creationism, which merely rejects scientific conclusions, not facts. If you can find an actual creationist who believes that God created Man 6,000 or so years ago in the form of a creature that had descended from ape-like ancestors, with numerous population centers throughout Africa, Europe and Asia, and with the walled city of Jericho already in existence, then perhaps that person does not reject scientific facts either. I doubt there are many actual creationists who believe that, though.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Perhaps you are correct,
Perhaps you are correct, although as pico P.H.Gosse
might actually fit this very mold.
Why might a Meta-physical being create a universe with a false apparant past? I can think of several possibilities but obviously I have no idea if any of these are true:
I think that this argument, rather than taking the position that Creationists today actually believe in this exact scenario, is actually pointing out that their actions to try and play the game by scientific rules is ill founded. Such a strategy is doomed to failure. Better to simply assert, as I am here, that science by its very definition can neither prove nor disprove anything with respect to the existence or actions of meta-physical beings.
It seems to me that this sort of cuts the anti-religious scientists (a subset of all scientists) off at the knees using their own rationale while preserving ability of the religious to have their faith and still live in a universe governed by physical laws.
So while this may not be the prevailing view amongst Creationists today, I argue that it should be! :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I took gen-ed philosophy, too
We came to the conclusion that while those events are possible, they are so improbable as to render them meaningless. Truly, to believe those things would be to suspend rational thought, which was my original objection.
SL has already said most everything else that needs to be said on this matter.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
I'm not even saying that I believe this.
I am just saying, that as long as you allow for the existence of an omnipotent meta-physical being, which is a required part of a creationist's belief system, that you can't say that the Earth is definitely more than 6,000 years old. Period. End of statement. That's all I am saying.
How you determined that it was probable or not is interesting because you have absolutely no way to judge whether such a being even exists, much less what their intentions or motivations for creating the known universe is. Logic and reason demand no less.
Out of all of the "apparent" historical states of the universe, which is most probably the initial state? We, of course, have absolutely no way to tell or to even reduce the likelyhood of one over the other. So, they are effectively all equally likely, correct?
To illustrate my point I will use an example my father once told me (in a completely different context). Let us consider all of the previous historical states of the universe to be analogous to the individual prints in a limited edition series of prints (i.e. where an artist prints a limited number of a given picture, for example).
In these circumstances my father always marvelled at how people liked to focus on the low numbered prints like they were more valuable or something. So some guy might say "I've got print number 15 of 5000!" My dad would then reply, "Gee, that's great, I've got print number 4985! It's just as rare."
The point being that the probability of the initial state being number 15 or number 4985 is the same either way, and you have no means of differentiating between the two.
The moral of this debate? Live you life like there isn't a meta-physical being out there if that is what you want, but don't deny others their faith. We might as well act like the physical laws of the universe are the only game in town, but that doesn't mean that there isn't another game in town.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I find this strangely compelling
watching you flounder desparately is oddly hypnotic. There is of course the schadenfreude aspect of watching you wallow in the worst sewers of human argument, but it's more than that. There's something vindicating about watching the corrupt industry shills become increaingly desparate. Like rabid dogs sinking in quicksand, thrashing harder and harder against the inevitable only to find that it quickens their demise.
So by all means keep proposing more and more outlandish responses to the growing popular understanding about climate change.
It provides quite the show.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
A paragraph or two from today's Glenn Greenwald:
Several months ago, it was reported that the CENTCOM Commander, Admiral William Fallon, blocked what had appeared to be the successful efforts by Dick Cheney and administration neocons to send a third aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf and "vowed privately there would be no war against Iran as long as he was chief of CENTCOM"
.
This is what you get when you have a Rush Limbaugh Nation -- a country filled with war cheerleaders whose insatiable appetite for new military conflicts is matched only by their steadfast refusal to volunteer to fight. It results in an army so weak and depleted that, according to the Army's top officer, it is incapable of fighting in any other conflicts (and therefore posing a meaningful deterrent threat). Casey's specific warning that they are incapable of "respond[ing] to another conflict" was obviously issued with Iran at least partially in mind.
For obvious reasons, it is not a positive development to have the U.S. military serve as the primary check on the crazed warmongers who have control of our government. In a country that lives under civilian rule, that really is not and should not be the role of the military....At the same time, the reason this is happening seems clear. Neoconservative extremists want endless war, and they are supported by the most powerful faction in our government, led by Dick Cheney, who has prevailed in every significant conflict over the last six years. And their radicalism has eroded not only the standing and strength of the United States as a country, but is close to shattering our military forces as well. Even with Iraq draining away all of our resources, they are eager, hungry and increasingly impatient for a new war with the much more formidable Iranians.
They crave regime change in Iran, and, sitting safe and protected in the U.S., they do not care at all what the aftermath is, certainly not for the 160,000 American troops sitting in Iraq. There has been a long-simmering conflict of interests between the war-crazy neocons and the U.S. military.
Must-read for everyone except Tlaloc
My incredibly exciting and hard-hitting diary on doping in sports
up at the Forvm.
Ok, so it's not that important, but if you're interested take a look =)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
heh. :)
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Oh joy
It wasn't bad enough to have the preening Rep presidential candidates try to act macho and see who could posture the most on the issue of torturing helpless prisoners, now we can watch redstaters do it too!
Who will get the hardest boner from fantasies of hurting those who can't fight back? I can't wait to find out.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Newt Ginrich speaks!
He sat down to do an interview with Robert Bluey of RedState and Ed Morrissey of Captain's Quarters. He says:
"The most effective candidate in the race is Hillary Clinton. She has done exactly what you asked. It's just that her answers are wrong. Senator Clinton is a serious, competent, formidable person who works hard every day. She's for too much government, she's for too liberal a policy, she would appoint judges who are way too liberal. But she is a formidable person. No one on our side is going to beat her by the kind of cheap and nasty campaign that beat John Kerry."
Yup.....Newt himself is saying that Republicans ran a dishonest and unprincipled campaign to beat John Kerry in 2004.
Hey GR.....How much money are you going to send Newt for his Presidential bid? I'd like to ask you to double it.
A quote which proves both my contentions
1) he's a good idea man
2) he doesn't have a prayer of being president
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Steve Foley (who sometimes posts here)
On redstate has a personal thread.
Apparently he's had several family members die from breast cancer including a fairly young (35yo) cousin most recently. The post contains an editorial written by his aunt and is asking for donations.
Worth considering.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.