|
Grex > Agora56 > #115: Bush administration wants to let United Arab Emirates control six U.S. ports | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 154 responses total. |
jep
|
|
response 108 of 154:
| 
Mar 1 16:22 UTC 2006 |
It is unlikely to the point of being preposterous that either the
president or the Senate Majority Leader want to completely eliminate
filibusters as a function of the Senate, since both of these gentlemen
are well aware they will not be in power forever and that the
filibuster might well be needed by their side again. There is no
reason whatsoever to believe that either of them wants anything of the
sort. It would be politically extremely risky and convey almost no
long term benefit. Given that it is infallibly obvious that it would
be truly stupid for any national politician to eliminate the
filibuster, I think it is an inescapable conclusion that these two
prominent national leaders don't want anything like what you have
said. That forces me to the conclusion that you just simply made up
your "fact".
Now, it would be the easiest thing in the world for you to counter my
argument, if you're really citing a fact, by posting a reliable quote
attributed to either of them that shows they, indeed, want to eliminate
all filibusters.
I don't think you can do that.
|
richard
|
|
response 109 of 154:
|
Mar 1 17:20 UTC 2006 |
jep dont ask me to cite facts when you haven't.
|
klg
|
|
response 110 of 154:
|
Mar 1 17:21 UTC 2006 |
"Thus far, reportedly, the Republicans have not used the filibuster to
prevent the Senate from voting on any judicial nominee WHO HAD ENOUGH
VOTES FOR CONFIRMATION."
Only 45 Senators voted for cloture on the Fortas nomination, making it
pretty obvious that he didn't have enough backing to be confirmed.
|
richard
|
|
response 111 of 154:
|
Mar 1 17:28 UTC 2006 |
in any case, if the majority party gets to decide when and where a filibuster
can be used, what types of things it can be used on, you are killing it for
all intents and purposes. you are taking away the very point of having a
filibuster.
|
jep
|
|
response 112 of 154:
|
Mar 1 18:37 UTC 2006 |
re resp:109: Okay, here's a quote from the president on his advocacy
for getting rid of all filibusters:
""
It's through. It's accurate. I didn't make it up.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 113 of 154:
|
Mar 1 19:07 UTC 2006 |
he just let's rove and melman say it for him
|
klg
|
|
response 114 of 154:
|
Mar 1 20:40 UTC 2006 |
Good on, JEP.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 115 of 154:
|
Mar 1 22:16 UTC 2006 |
>jep dont ask me to cite facts when you haven't.
jep didn't, but I did. Bush and Frist are on record as opposing ending
the filibuster on legislation. Maybe they're lying, but that's what
they said. If you've got an actual quote otherwise, sock it to us.
>Only 45 Senators voted for cloture on the Fortas nomination, making it
>pretty obvious that he didn't have enough backing to be confirmed.
45 voted for cloture, 43 voted against, a dozen were unaccounted for.
The AP "found 47 Senators favoring confirmation of Mr. Fortas and 27
opposed. Twenty-two described themselves as uncommitted and four were
not reached." The NYTimes wrote, "Informal polls in recent weeks have
shown that a majority of Senators now favor confirmation of Justice
Fortas. Opponents believe that only by staging a filibuster can they
block confirmation." Republican leaders acknowledged that, by their
count, there were enough votes to confirm. Hence, the filibuster--If
they had the votes to defeat the nomination, there'd be no need.
|
klg
|
|
response 116 of 154:
|
Mar 2 11:37 UTC 2006 |
That is AP's opinion. Not necessarily reality. If they actually
wanted to confirm Fortas, don't you think more Senators would have
shown up for the cloture vote??
|
jep
|
|
response 117 of 154:
|
Mar 2 13:30 UTC 2006 |
re resp:115: Johnnie, in resp:91 and resp:102, you cited what we
all know, that Bill Frist has threatened to do away with filibusters for
confirmation of judicial nominee. You said in resp:107 that there are no
quotes saying Bush and/or Frist want to get rid of other filibusters, though
you personally believe they would do so if it would benefit them.
I agree with you that Bill Frist would gladly take for himself the
power to pick and choose who gets to filibuster and on what issues, for
now and forever. I don't think (and don't expect you think) that he'd
really do away with the filibuster power forever, knowing full well
that the Democrats will be in charge of the Senate sometimes in the
future.
It's reasonable to expect that the Senate majority leader wants the
Senate to remain as it has always been, more or less, since it's make-
up allowed him to get to the position of immense power he now holds.
|
jep
|
|
response 118 of 154:
|
Mar 2 13:53 UTC 2006 |
re resp:114: klg, you are as likely to make up facts, and to mis-
represent facts, as is richard, and as unlikely to try to reach any
kind of reasonable understanding about any issues being discussed. I
wouldn't be thanking me or citing agreement with me if I were you. I
slammed the idea of posting obviously inaccurate statements. I used
richard as an example this time, but it's the inaccurate statements
which I was targeting.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 119 of 154:
|
Mar 2 14:10 UTC 2006 |
Yes. Both sides have been a bit reluctant to force the filibuster
issue, but the Republican leadership (particularly in the House) has
rejiggered many other rules that benefit them now, and will screw them
later when the Democrats regain a majority. I don't know if it's the
arrogance of power, typical politician myopia, a belief they'll always
have the majority, or trying to get stuff done while the majority is
theirs. I think Frist understands the danger of ending the filibuster,
but the Bush administration is far less concerned about the traditions
and concerns of the legislative branch (and addicted to what benefits
them today), and Frist largely does what the Bush administration asks.
That may change, though, with Bush's approval ratings in the toilet, and
Frist wanting to run for president in '08.
|
klg
|
|
response 120 of 154:
|
Mar 2 17:31 UTC 2006 |
(Say what you wish, JEP - but I probably provide more citations for my
posts than anyone else around here. How often do you do so? When I
don't, I often state that the information has been reported elsewhere,
meaning I am not making it up, but passing it along for consideration.
And, as someone who has actually made major changes in the positions I
hold, I think it is unreasonable of you to say that I do not reach
reasoned understandings of the issues.)
|
jep
|
|
response 121 of 154:
|
Mar 2 18:12 UTC 2006 |
re resp:120: klg, I skip over most of what you say.
You ridicule people a lot.
You make a lot of accusations such as with, for example, your "richard
LIES" message wrappers.
You take a lot of people's comments out of context to reverse their
meaning.
I don't find any of these things to be reasonable. I don't find them
entertaining, and Grex to me is an entertainment.
My perception, from what I have read, is that you are pretty rabidly
one-sided about your views. I haven't really read that much of what
you've posted, but I've read enough to have an idea what to expect.
To some extent, you and I are coming from the same side on a lot of
discussions. You, bru and I are the conservative face of Grex. I wish
I could count you as "one of my own" as I do bru, but I can't. Bruce
and I generally want to be pleasant and a part of the community, like
the vast majority of Grexers. You seem more similar to those who want
to vandalize the system.
|
klg
|
|
response 122 of 154:
|
Mar 2 20:17 UTC 2006 |
Wait a second. You can tell RW he's lying and it's ok. But I do it
and it's "accusations?" I think my "scrolls" are fun. It's a lot less
venemous than the "abuse" I get. But do I complain about it???
Don't worry, though. I won't invite you over for dinner. (See the
electric chair discussion. It's called a JOKE.)
|
nharmon
|
|
response 123 of 154:
|
Mar 2 20:18 UTC 2006 |
US OVER FOR DINNER ** KLG WONT INVITE US OVER FOR DINNER ** ** KLG WONT
You know KLG, these scrolls are a lot of fun.
Yeeee haw!
DINNER ** KLG WONT INVITE US OVER FOR DINNER ** ** KLG WONT INVITE US
|
tod
|
|
response 124 of 154:
|
Mar 2 20:19 UTC 2006 |
How To Serve Man
|
klg
|
|
response 125 of 154:
|
Mar 2 20:22 UTC 2006 |
(Now you're getting the hang of it NH!)
|
cyklone
|
|
response 126 of 154:
|
Mar 2 21:43 UTC 2006 |
Dude, jep took the time to point out specifically where Richard lied. You,
on the other hand, play much looser with the "facts" you toss around.
You're also an expert at ducking any serious comments or questions that
challenge your position, prefering the easy targets like Richard to the
many points those like johnnie makes, and which you are apparently unable
to rebut.
|
richard
|
|
response 127 of 154:
|
Mar 3 02:11 UTC 2006 |
cyklone, I did NOT lie, I stated the truth as I understood it.
Neither you nor JEP are in any position to say I lied unless you can
read my mind. My posts were honest.
|
klg
|
|
response 128 of 154:
|
Mar 3 02:15 UTC 2006 |
(In other words, when a Liberal makes an error it's honest. When a
Republican makes an error, it's an impeachable offense.)
|
cyklone
|
|
response 129 of 154:
|
Mar 3 04:26 UTC 2006 |
There you go again, resorting to transparently false rhetoric.
BTW, richard, claiming "I stated the truth as I understood it" doesn't
really make you much different from the fundie christians and muslims you
claim to dislike. Just a little something to think about . . . .
|
jep
|
|
response 130 of 154:
|
Mar 3 14:32 UTC 2006 |
re resp:128: klg, I think the president of the United States, making
decisions about going to war, should be held to a higher standard than
a user in a casual discussion forum, don't you? Honestly?
I agree with you that one has to make some allowances for anyone to
make mistakes, including the president. However, especially on the
really big issues, the president has to be held accountable for the
decisions he makes.
re resp:127: Richard, I pointed out flaws in what you had said
previously. If you just made a mistake, you should just say "Sorry, I
goofed" and come up with a new position. If you continue to
cite "facts" which obviously are not true, after they've been pointed
out to you, it's very difficult for me to call those citations anything
else but lies. (Unless you're incapable of understanding reality due
to low intelligence or insanity... I assume you are not.)
|
edina
|
|
response 131 of 154:
|
Mar 3 16:04 UTC 2006 |
Yeah, I'll agree with a lot of the above. Richard, you could spare yourself
a lot of grief if you qualified what you said with "in my opinion" or "from
what I've seen". You state a lot of opinion as fact. Why, it's nearly as
annoying as when you do the "well if you believe X, you MUST believe Y" dance.
|
gull
|
|
response 132 of 154:
|
Mar 3 22:34 UTC 2006 |
Re resp:116: That seems nonsensical. Why would anyone bother to
filibuster a nominee who clearly didn't have enough votes to be
confirmed in the first place? The very fact that they filibustered
suggests they thought the votes might be there.
|