"See ya spine. Nice having you around."

[Guest Cerebus]

Apparently, we replaced a fool with an invertabrae:

 

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is all but certain to press for a rule change that would ban filibusters of judicial nominations in the next few weeks, despite misgivings by some of his fellow Republicans and a possible Democratic backlash that could paralyze the chamber, close associates said yesterday.

 

The strategy carries significant risks for the Tennessee Republican, who is weighing a 2008 presidential bid. It could embroil the Senate in a bitter stalemate that would complicate passage of President Bush's agenda and raise questions about Frist's leadership capabilities. Should he fail to make the move or to get the necessary votes, however, Frist risks the ire of key conservative groups that will play big roles in the 2008 GOP primaries.

 

Frist feels he has no acceptable options to seeking the rule change unless there is a last-minute compromise, which neither party considers plausible, according to senators and aides close to the situation. "I think it's going to happen," Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) said this week, although he would prefer that Frist wait to allow more legislation to pass before the Senate explodes in partisan recriminations. Aides privy to senior Republicans' thinking concur with Thune.

 

Bull-fucking-shit. Either Frist is in need for some high powered viagra, or he's afraid of Senate Democrats pulling a Newt Gingrich scoarched earth strategy. This is the Republican party that came into office with the federal judiciary as high up on priorities for the Senate. And what they do in face of opposition? Jack. Shit.

 

Senate Democrats like Reid and Boxer have threatened to put the Senate on lockdown. Instead of standing up to the Dems, like he should, he wants to back down, making the whole party back down on its commitments, its promises, and its philosophy.

 

To hell with the national Republican party. Not only do they cozy up to larger and larger corporate interests (an anthemea to true free market capitalism), meddle in too many personal affairs, and lick the boots of those idiots that would politicize MY religion, now they don't even have the balls to stand up to moronic and juvenile tactics from the oppositon. The national party is not going to get a single penny from me until they find their backbone.

[Slayer 0]

To hell with the national Republican party.

That was me about 6 years ago

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

If the GOP only had the balls of Democrats they'd be a kick-ass Party...

[Slayer 0]

Oh yeah, how come they don't have a case of small-balls when it comes to the crusade of keeping dirty jokes off the radio or extra skin off TV?

[Guest Cerebus]

Surprisingly, Congress is a lot more lax about that than the group of ass clowns that make up the FCC.

[Ted the Poster 0]

It's really more the PTC, which is composed mainly of the religious right. They represent sometyhing like 98% of complaints made to the FCC.

[LessonInMachismo 0]

It's really more the PTC, which is composed mainly of the religious right. They represent sometyhing like 98% of complaints made to the FCC.

And who is in the PTC? Former vice-presidential candidate and DEMOCRAT, Joel Lieberman.

[Slayer 0]

It's really more the PTC

But the PTC is not a government agency, and therefore has no real power (no more power than any other lobby, that is)

[{''({o..o})''} 0]

It's really more the PTC, which is composed mainly of the religious right. They represent sometyhing like 98% of complaints made to the FCC.

And who is in the PTC? Former vice-presidential candidate and DEMOCRAT, Joel Lieberman.

Yeah, we get that you're a Republican. Lieberman being attached to the PTC doesn't mean that the majority of it's members aren't the religous right as mentioned above.

[LessonInMachismo 0]

It's really more the PTC, which is composed mainly of the religious right. They represent sometyhing like 98% of complaints made to the FCC.

And who is in the PTC? Former vice-presidential candidate and DEMOCRAT, Joel Lieberman.

Yeah, we get that you're a Republican. Lieberman being attached to the PTC doesn't mean that the majority of it's members aren't the religous right as mentioned above.

Just making sure that was known.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Yeah, uh, making fun of Joementum isn't going to faze 90% of Democrats. I'd suggest a different method of attack.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Oh, on a side note Cereb, last week I got a GOP SURVEY that only goes out to ONE REPUBLICAN VOTER PER DISTRICT.

 

I filled it out, being the good little Republican that I am, then got to the part about donating money. HAHAHAHAHAHA -- that's what I wrote on the survey...

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

To hell with the national Republican party.

 

Join us in the Democratic Party, it'll be less awkward over time.

 

Not only do they cozy up to larger and larger corporate interests (an anthemea to true free market capitalism)

 

And some in the Dems hate how they've went for corporate donations. So apparently corporations have no proper party at the moment.

 

meddle in too many personal affairs

 

Hear Hear

 

lick the boots of those idiots that would politicize MY religion

 

*nods*

 

now they don't even have the balls to stand up to moronic and juvenile tactics from the oppositon.

 

So, what suggests that we'll see that happen?

 

The national party is not going to get a single penny from me until they find their backbone.

 

So, what do you want Bill Frist to do?

 

He's moving towards destroying the filibuster, he's not backing down on that.

 

Is there a way, in your POV, to stop Harry Reid?

[Guest Cerebus]

Sure, half heartedly, three months into the session and he's STILL planning on twiddling his thumbs. And its not just the nominations either. The slandering of Rice, the mudslinging against Bolton, the supremely bone headed move of challenging the slate of electors. All this, and Frist is ready to sit on his hands.

 

When you're provoked to war, as the Democratic leadership has clearly done, go to war or get the hell out of the way of those who will.*

 

*This is in relation to the Senate only and should not be used to make any "funny" jokes about Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, France or any other country.

[Guest Cerebus]

By the way, I should note that I do work for the (Republican) House Minority Leader in the Connecticut state legislature so I'm not changing my party affiliation any time soon. I'm just getting sick of the reasons I like the Republicans being totally ignored and not followed up on while the reasons I DON'T like the Republicans are lavished with attention and priority.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Cerebus, feel free to unleash all the dirty secrets of the Connecticut Republican Party. j/k

 

At least somebody is whole-heartedly thinking the Dems have a backbone.

 

Anyways, it appears the filibuster is being used as an issue to get the Conservative Christians out in force. In their POV, the filibuster is being used against Christians.

 

So the filibuster fight is getting entangled with the Southern Baptist/Assemblies of God part of the Republican party.

 

It sounds like you have a lot of problems, but I can't see the solution. I guess it's a public relations counteroffensive. Or using the mute button on Dems or something.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Strangly enough I really identify with Cerbs feelings about his party. Technically, I SHOULD be a democrat but I just can't be as they don't rep my interests, are pussies, say stupid shit, are pussies, and can't run elections.

 

Gee and with all those elections we have every year won't it be great one day to actually have someone to VOTE FOR??? Oh well, 08 can't come soon enough for me to toss my vote away for Nader.

 

Good luck Cerberus, welcome to the sinking ship.

[Jingus 0]

I hate both parties too.

 

I disagree with a lot of Bush's policy decisions, and absolutely loathe his superhero-level power to enrage everyone around the globe. He kinda reminds me of a good friend of mine, actually: a smart guy, but he has an almost magical talent for phrasing things badly or saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. I know Bush truly means well, and believes in what he's doing. But having him as a president seems about as appropriate as having me as a surgeon: I'd really want to cure the patient, and might even have the correct idea of how to do that, but lack of knowledge about the details and general clumsiness would inevitably lead to one big "Whoops!" in the end.

 

As for the rest of the Republican party, they all kinda blur together in my mind. Colin Powell was the only one I ever actively liked. Other than that, it seems like mostly a club of rich white guys whose main goal is to stay in power.

 

As to the Democrats, they're no better. They're just as bad. But in different ways. The only thing as bad as a Biblethumper is some jackass atheist who assumes that all Christians are arrogant Biblethumpers. Or a treehugging hippie who is completely ignorant of all proven scientific fact yet who has made it his mission in life to "save the planet" when it is categorically impossible to either save or destroy our mother earth. And for chrissakes, I'm a liberal, but even I despise people like PETA and NAACP whose only goal in life is to make everyone else's difficult.

 

So what's left? I voted for Nader in 2000. I actually hit both his and Gore's button simultaneously and let fate decide, since I knew damn well that Bush was gonna win my state so my vote didn't matter anyway. I didn't bother voting at all in 2004 because I knew damn well that Bush would be reelected. As an American citizen, I feel generally disenfranchised and powerless to control any of the workings of my country's government. Nobody up there seems to represent me. I wish there were a third major party, a centrist party based on the idea of "we've got problems, let's find PRACTICAL solutions to them". But right now there ain't.

 

Oh, and on the deal with Frist: trying to circumvent the Constitution when it's convenient to do so isn't a good thing. Filibusters should be protected, because anyone can use them, any Senator who feels like doing so. It's always been the last resort of minority parties who have a serious bone to pick and feel like the majority is overrunning them. To do away with it would be doing away with one of those much-lauded "checks and balances" that help keep this government running.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

I didn't bother voting at all in 2004 because I knew damn well that Bush would be reelected.

Generally perceptive thoughts on the failings of both parties, but that statement raised an eyebrow.

[Jingus 0]

I was fully confident that Bush would be reelected. No opponent as weak as Kerry was gonna beat him in this time of daily terrorist attacks. And I was fullly confident that my state, Tennessee, would give its electoral votes to Bush just like we did last time. So, in short, my vote meant jack shit. It would not and could not possibly change a single thing in terms of how the election proceeded. I'd already made my symbolic gesture by voting for Nader in 2000. In 2004, I decided that I'd rather not waste the gas and time just to vote in an election which I was already certain of its outcome.

[Guest MikeSC]

By the way, I should note that I do work for the (Republican) House Minority Leader in the Connecticut state legislature so I'm not changing my party affiliation any time soon. I'm just getting sick of the reasons I like the Republicans being totally ignored and not followed up on while the reasons I DON'T like the Republicans are lavished with attention and priority.

Can I blame you for that twatrock Chris Shays being in Congress?

I disagree with a lot of Bush's policy decisions, and absolutely loathe his superhero-level power to enrage everyone around the globe. He kinda reminds me of a good friend of mine, actually: a smart guy, but he has an almost magical talent for phrasing things badly or saying the wrong thing at the wrong time.

Can you name the times Bush has said things specifically to piss off the world? He's been nothing but friendly to our alleged allies.

Oh, and on the deal with Frist: trying to circumvent the Constitution when it's convenient to do so isn't a good thing. Filibusters should be protected, because anyone can use them, any Senator who feels like doing so.

Except filibusters aren't in the Constitution and have been changed in the past already.

To do away with it would be doing away with one of those much-lauded "checks and balances" that help keep this government running.

Except that they're simply based on parliamentary rules in the Senate and not on any actual Constitutional basis.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

It's really more the PTC, which is composed mainly of the religious right. They represent sometyhing like 98% of complaints made to the FCC.

And who is in the PTC? Former vice-presidential candidate and DEMOCRAT, Joe Lieberman.

Yeah, we get that you're a Republican. Lieberman being attached to the PTC doesn't mean that the majority of it's members aren't the religous right as mentioned above.

Just making sure that was known.

Except that Joe Lieberman's not actually *in* the PTC.

[Jingus 0]

Can you name the times Bush has said things specifically to piss off the world? He's been nothing but friendly to our alleged allies.

Specifically, no of course I can't. I'm lazy. And I was speaking in hyperbole and didn't really mean to include our allies in there too. But let's just say that George W. Bush is not good at calming people down.

 

Except filibusters aren't in the Constitution and have been changed in the past already.

 

Except that they're simply based on parliamentary rules in the Senate and not on any actual Constitutional basis.

D'oh. Been a while since American History AP.

[Guest MikeSC]

Can you name the times Bush has said things specifically to piss off the world? He's been nothing but friendly to our alleged allies.

Specifically, no of course I can't. I'm lazy. And I was speaking in hyperbole and didn't really mean to include our allies in there too. But let's just say that George W. Bush is not good at calming people down.

 

Except filibusters aren't in the Constitution and have been changed in the past already.

 

Except that they're simply based on parliamentary rules in the Senate and not on any actual Constitutional basis.

D'oh. Been a while since American History AP.

And when has he caused people to become more upset?

 

If somebody is yelling and screaming at you no matter what you do --- are YOU the one responsible for them acting like ninnies?

-=Mike

[Jingus 0]

And when has he caused people to become more upset?

Uh... maybe when he invaded Iraq?

[Guest MikeSC]

And when has he caused people to become more upset?

Uh... maybe when he invaded Iraq?

You mean when he decided to actually enforce resolutions the people in the world had no problem passing ad infinitum?

 

You mean when he decided that Saddam was violating the terms of the ceasefire he signed?

 

Umm, not quite.

-=Mike

[Jingus 0]

Mike, you've probably seen my posts on Iraq here. You know I'm not a pink-blooded hippie screaming "Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!". I'm not out to argue with you Just Because. But are you seriously trying to debate that George W. Bush has NOT angered people around the world? Whether or not the anger is justified is beside the point, are you saying that anger doesn't exist?

[SuperJerk 0]

I think he's just trying to argue that he doesn't care.

 

 

Mike's premises shift so much its hard to tell sometimes exactly what it is he's proposing.

[Guest MikeSC]

Mike, you've probably seen my posts on Iraq here. You know I'm not a pink-blooded hippie screaming "Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!". I'm not out to argue with you Just Because. But are you seriously trying to debate that George W. Bush has NOT angered people around the world?

I'm arguing that people around the world are irate for no rational reason. It's not Bush's fault that they're irrationally irate.

Whether or not the anger is justified is beside the point, are you saying that anger doesn't exist?

Let's say your driving on the interstate.

 

You're going 70 in a 65.

 

Behind you, some dude is LIVID because you're speeding --- but not enough for his happiness. You see him flipping you off and screaming at you.

 

Using your logic, you're to blame for him being pissed.

-=Mike

[Jingus 0]

Let's say your driving on the interstate.

 

You're going 70 in a 65.

 

Behind you, some dude is LIVID because you're speeding --- but not enough for his happiness. You see him flipping you off and screaming at you.

 

Using your logic, you're to blame for him being pissed.

You just described what happens almost every time I get on the interstate. And hell yes I'm the reason the guy behind me is mad. He's also a lead-footed asshole, but he wouldn't be mad if I weren't there.