Don’t be cruel. The poor thing will starve.
And therefore they have the right to prevent the agency from existing after it was created.
…THAT IS NOT A POWER THAT CONGRESS WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE! This is a clearly defined abuse of congressional power.
No, back then, the Democrats reached an agreement with the republicans, and the republicans immediately shat all over that agreement and their very own principles the moment the democrats had a guy in the white house. :rolleyes: And this is supposed to be okay?
…And this is perfectly all right for you? You think that there is absolutely nothing wrong with this complete and utter lack of principles? WELP, GOOD TO KNOW WHERE WE STAND.
The Congress does have the power to approve or disapprove appointments. So - yes, it is the power that Congress was supposed to have.
It is silly to expect any principles from politicians. You can pretend that your side has principles. You’d be lying to yourself.
And yet you’re apologizing, stupidly, for them
The GOP doesn’t give a shit about this guy’s appointment - they’ve said so themselves - they’re holding the appointment up so the that department (which congress approved) will not exist.
Children. The lot of them. And you’re their cheerleader. Congratulations on having fewer principles than the principle-less government.
I’m not a senator, but I objected to them because they were proposed by GWB.
Cheerleaders for the GOP cannot pretend their Party is anything but despicable. So they rely, without any evidence, on the meme that Democrats are just as despicable.
GOP blocks the appointment of a qualified moderate? Demos once blocked a right-wing idiot.
GOP actively subverts the economy? Clinton may have pardoned a crook.
Bush conducted a war for stupid reasons, and to advance business interests? Some Democrat Congressman cheated on his wife.
Bah.
So did the Senators. And Republicans object to this one because he was proposed by Obama.
Did you even read the rest of that post you just quoted? If so, then have you no shame sir? At long last, have you no shame at all?
LOL. Can you add a little more drama, please?
I’m sorry, I though you thought it was, since you seem to think it doesn’t matter who started it.
In the adult world, you see, we give allowances for self-defense.
–
At this point I essentially am willing to give a pass to the Democrats based solely on basic game theory–if you do not retaliate when someone attacks you, you’re asking to be rolled over. That doesn’t change the fact that the initial attacker carries the lion’s share of the blame.
As you said yourself, "Principles. In politics. You’re funny. " You can’t simultaneously hold that position AND blame the Democrats for going tit-for-tat.
So that would be a “no” then.
I guess you’re not a Joseph Welsh fan. Or you’re just pig-ignorant. One of the two.
More drama, please.
Of course I can. Just like you blame Republicans.
So in other words, you care about your “team” and don’t actually care about principles or ethical behavior. Good to know. Thanks for being part of the problem!
I blame the Republicans more than the Democrats for this state of affairs in exactly the same way I blame a guy who starts a fight more than I blame one who fights back. What you are saying is that defending yourself is JUST AS BAD as initiating a fight, and that’s laughably immoral.
But then again, I bitched about the Dems initiating the fool idea of trying to filibuster nominations back in the day, too. Because I’m not a hypocrite, unlike some Republican supporters.
Only to someone who actually, childishly, ignorantly, democracy-corrodingly, baby-Abraham-Lincoln-cryingly, believes that there is no place for principles in politics.
Go do your homework, kid. Then go learn something about the real world. You aren’t equipped for it yet.
Republicans are not my “team”. I never voted once for a Republican (or for a Democrat). And it’s not that I don’t “actually care”. It’s that no principles or ethical behavior is to ever be found among politicians. People with principles or ethics do not run for office. Or at least don’t win if they do.
Sure. Your enemies rape your women and children, so when you start winning you rape their women and children. Great ethics and principles there.
You must be a teenager. Because if you aren’t, it’s pathetic that you still believe politicians have ethics or principles.
If we look at the bar graph from earlier in the thread, my take-away is that the filibuster was rarely used until the 70s, when the minority Republican party kicked things up a notch. Once the Dems were in the minority, they matched the new normal in terms of use. Then, in the 90s, the minority GOP upped their game once more. When the Dems were once again in the minority (late 90s, 2000s), they once again adopted the new normal as set by the GOP. And here we are again, with the GOP in the minority, sending filibusters up to a new all time high.
So, it would seem to be the GOP that is leading the charge in the use of filibusters, with the Dems responding in kind when they are thrown into the minority. We’ll see what happens the next time the tables are turned. As it is, it seems that they are both “as bad”, as measured by this metric, but it is the GOP that determines the level of “badness” that is acceptable going forward, resetting that level higher each time they become the minority party. It’s like the Dems are playing “tit for tat”, a highly effective strategy as predicted by simulations against multiple interaction strategies run over many iterations. The GOP might be playing something like “two tits for every tat” or some variation of that strategy-- not known for it’s effectiveness, but better than the worst strategies.
Still, this is a pretty simplistic analysis, based solely on the quantity of filibuster, without analyzing individual acts to see which ones were more significant.
The point is not that they do, the point is that they should. Politicians may not have ethics, but they damn well should. And we should hold them to it. You seem to be coming out against morals as a whole!
I am certainly glad to hear that you are politically irrelevant. Perhaps you can talk any like-minded citizens to join you in continuing to support what ever party it is that you have been voting for.