GOP Filibusters Habaes Restoration.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2007-09-19 11:52pm

Flagg wrote:
SirNitram wrote:You know, the actual link I posted showed that not only was fillibuster attempted, it succeeded. That's what a vote on Cloture means.
Yeah, but the Democrats could have actually made the Republicans debate all night, rather than just accept that they would. They did it earlier this year. Not that it would have made any real difference, of course.

So everyone should sit with thumbs up their asses, knowing the Republicans will do as they did last time. That's a real good use of time and effort.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2007-09-19 11:58pm

SirNitram wrote:
Flagg wrote:
SirNitram wrote:You know, the actual link I posted showed that not only was fillibuster attempted, it succeeded. That's what a vote on Cloture means.
Yeah, but the Democrats could have actually made the Republicans debate all night, rather than just accept that they would. They did it earlier this year. Not that it would have made any real difference, of course.
So everyone should sit with thumbs up their asses, knowing the Republicans will do as they did last time. That's a real good use of time and effort.

Yeah, I didn't say that. I'd also direct your attention to the bolded bit.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2007-09-20 12:02am

Flagg wrote:Yeah, I didn't say that. I'd also direct your attention to the bolded bit.

Then they shouldn't bother with such and people should stop harping on it. It's the sort of thing you do when there's reason to believe there will be a better outcome. I also hoped that moving on would get the Webb amendment through, but that got filibustered as well. Oh well. Two votes to tie around GOPer's legs.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2007-09-20 12:11am

SirNitram wrote:
Flagg wrote:Yeah, I didn't say that. I'd also direct your attention to the bolded bit.
Then they shouldn't bother with such and people should stop harping on it. It's the sort of thing you do when there's reason to believe there will be a better outcome. I also hoped that moving on would get the Webb amendment through, but that got filibustered as well. Oh well. Two votes to tie around GOPer's legs.

It's one way of showing you're serious about getting this Iraq situation improved, but the Retardlicans have shown that they are in fact willing to actually fillibuster all night long. So yeah, in the end it's pointless.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2007-09-20 12:16am

and liberty still dead

resusitation efforts seem doomed

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2007-09-20 12:18am

Flagg wrote:It's one way of showing you're serious about getting this Iraq situation improved, but the Retardlicans have shown that they are in fact willing to actually fillibuster all night long. So yeah, in the end it's pointless.

So.. It's political grandstanding. It's an empty gesture that tries to claim 'seriousness'. Closer to something serious is what Reid has announced as the plan(We'll see if he carries it out), which is not allowing any more Iraq bills without firm timelines.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2007-09-20 12:23am

SirNitram wrote:
Flagg wrote:It's one way of showing you're serious about getting this Iraq situation improved, but the Retardlicans have shown that they are in fact willing to actually fillibuster all night long. So yeah, in the end it's pointless.
So.. It's political grandstanding. It's an empty gesture that tries to claim 'seriousness'. Closer to something serious is what Reid has announced as the plan(We'll see if he carries it out), which is not allowing any more Iraq bills without firm timelines.

Doing it again would probably be grandtsnding. The first time was probably as much about trying to see how serious the Republicans were in opposing the bill and making them "put their money where their mouth is" as it was about letting their base know they're doing something.

Of course I'm more and more coming to the conclusion that the Democrats have decided that since there isn't much they can really do about the war, they will simply throw some speed bumps in the way, yet let Bush get just about whatever he wants on the Iraq front in order to strengthen their chances in the '08 Presidential and Congressional elections.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2007-09-20 12:26am

Flagg wrote:Doing it again would probably be grandtsnding. The first time was probably as much about trying to see how serious the Republicans were in opposing the bill and making them "put their money where their mouth is" as it was about letting their base know they're doing something.

Of course I'm more and more coming to the conclusion that the Democrats have decided that since there isn't much they can really do about the war, they will simply throw some speed bumps in the way, yet let Bush get just about whatever he wants on the Iraq front in order to strengthen their chances in the '08 Presidential and Congressional elections.

The first all-nighter was justified because there was every reason to think the GOP would abandon Bush if it meant no sleep. But the GOP are that fanatical.

I do have to ask: How do you determine 'The Democrats' here? The ones who cave, which are invariably the 'Conservative', 'moderate' ones that get praised for widening electability? Or just a generalized feeling which is exactly what this is being spun to produce?

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2007-09-20 12:33am

SirNitram wrote:
Flagg wrote:Doing it again would probably be grandtsnding. The first time was probably as much about trying to see how serious the Republicans were in opposing the bill and making them "put their money where their mouth is" as it was about letting their base know they're doing something.

Of course I'm more and more coming to the conclusion that the Democrats have decided that since there isn't much they can really do about the war, they will simply throw some speed bumps in the way, yet let Bush get just about whatever he wants on the Iraq front in order to strengthen their chances in the '08 Presidential and Congressional elections.
The first all-nighter was justified because there was every reason to think the GOP would abandon Bush if it meant no sleep. But the GOP are that fanatical.

I do have to ask: How do you determine 'The Democrats' here? The ones who cave, which are invariably the 'Conservative', 'moderate' ones that get praised for widening electability? Or just a generalized feeling which is exactly what this is being spun to produce?

The leadership. I think they know that there is really nothing they can do short of impeachment or pulling funding, so they are talking tough but not doing much else. It makes too much political sense not to. People can go on about how Bush will pawn the war off onto the next President and then claim that his successor lost the war, but I don't buy that and history says otherwise. The Iraq war is the best issue the Democrats as a whole have to run on.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2007-09-20 12:35am

Flagg wrote:The leadership. I think they know that there is really nothing they can do short of impeachment or pulling funding, so they are talking tough but not doing much else. It makes too much political sense not to. People can go on about how Bush will pawn the war off onto the next President and then claim that his successor lost the war, but I don't buy that and history says otherwise. The Iraq war is the best issue the Democrats as a whole have to run on.

Do you often support grandstanding? Because if you can't get the Blue Dogs in the House onboard, impeachment is a non-starter. Oh, they could probably ramrod Censure through with enough work, but whenever it comes up, people bitch about it being useless. Defunding is a non-starter because guess what? Americans have happily decided 'Funding the war' and 'Supporting the troops' mean the same thing, and it's electoral suicide to yank it. Hopefully that will change.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2007-09-20 12:43am

SirNitram wrote:
Flagg wrote:The leadership. I think they know that there is really nothing they can do short of impeachment or pulling funding, so they are talking tough but not doing much else. It makes too much political sense not to. People can go on about how Bush will pawn the war off onto the next President and then claim that his successor lost the war, but I don't buy that and history says otherwise. The Iraq war is the best issue the Democrats as a whole have to run on.
Do you often support grandstanding? Because if you can't get the Blue Dogs in the House onboard, impeachment is a non-starter. Oh, they could probably ramrod Censure through with enough work, but whenever it comes up, people bitch about it being useless. Defunding is a non-starter because guess what? Americans have happily decided 'Funding the war' and 'Supporting the troops' mean the same thing, and it's electoral suicide to yank it. Hopefully that will change.

If grandstanding is what it takes, then why the fuck not? At what point did how you voice objection become more of an issue then the objectionable action in the first place? This isn't some fucking spending issue, it's a war where people are dying every day for no fucking reason other than one mans ego.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2007-09-20 12:48am

Flagg wrote:If grandstanding is what it takes, then why the fuck not? At what point did how you voice objection become more of an issue then the objectionable action in the first place? This isn't some fucking spending issue, it's a war where people are dying every day for no fucking reason other than one mans ego.

What would these moves acheive, since we've learned just how far the GOP and it's Blue Dog trained mutts will go? You say 'Well, if Grandstanding is what it takes..' but you refrain from showing how it'd acheive anything, particularly ending any of this.

I love how you trivialize this, like I don't think people are dying. Is that it? Strawman arguments? Unsupported bluster? Take actions that have useful effects. Each time they throw a new bill to stop the war up, there's a chance a few more supporters shake loose, so don't stop for some stupid sideshow of staying up all night. That doesn't do a damn thing, we observed that.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2007-09-20 12:56am

SirNitram wrote:
Flagg wrote:If grandstanding is what it takes, then why the fuck not? At what point did how you voice objection become more of an issue then the objectionable action in the first place? This isn't some fucking spending issue, it's a war where people are dying every day for no fucking reason other than one mans ego.
What would these moves acheive, since we've learned just how far the GOP and it's Blue Dog trained mutts will go? You say 'Well, if Grandstanding is what it takes..' but you refrain from showing how it'd acheive anything, particularly ending any of this.

I love how you trivialize this, like I don't think people are dying. Is that it? Strawman arguments? Unsupported bluster? Take actions that have useful effects. Each time they throw a new bill to stop the war up, there's a chance a few more supporters shake loose, so don't stop for some stupid sideshow of staying up all night. That doesn't do a damn thing, we observed that.

It's not aimed at you, just at the situation as a whole. In fact I'm pretty much too frustrated with this whole situation to even have an intelligent discussion about it anymore aside from pointing out a few things here and there. So basically, I concede to the political realities.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2007-09-20 01:00am

Flagg wrote:It's not aimed at you, just at the situation as a whole. In fact I'm pretty much too frustrated with this whole situation to even have an intelligent discussion about it anymore aside from pointing out a few things here and there. So basically, I concede to the political realities.

Fight battles you can either win, or quickly fight battles you can tie around the other guy's legs.(There is no tangible difference in a campaign duke-out between 'He voted against Habaes Corpus!' and 'He voted against it.. AFTER TWENTY FOUR HOURS!'.)