Once the Democrats followed suit, definitely. “But he did it too” doesn’t work for five-year-olds, it shouldn’t work for adults either.
Short of the “nuclear option”, how? Or is that what you’re thinking of?
I think it’s more complicated than that. The situation in the Senate for years and years was that there were a set of laws governing how things were run, and then also a set of gentleman’s agreements about how those laws would actually be used. If an agreement of that sort is broken, then it’s broken, and it no longer applies, and neither side is bound by it. But it was still one side that initially broke it, and that side bears more responsibility for the ensuing situation (in this case, arguably, total gridlock) than the other side. There’s no law saying that politicians can’t run campaign ads negatively targeting members of their opponents’ families, but it’s a custom. If one side starts doing it regularly, then it is clearly no longer a custom, but standard practice. Then both sides will be doing it, but one side still bears the moral responsibility for the situation.
Even aside from that way of looking at the issue, there’s the question of democracy. If the will of the people, as expressed through an election, is that X should happen, well, then X should happen*. If there’s an election in 6 or 8 years where clearly the touchstone issue of the election is whether to legalize gambling, and the wants-to-legalize-gambling party wins the presidency and decisive, but not filibuster-proof, majorities in both houses of congress, then I believe that it would be contrary to the spirit of the American system of governance for 40 out of 100 Senators to just utterly and immovably refuse to allow gambling to be legalized.
Think about it this way… some day there’s going to be an issue that’s really important to you, and a clear majority of Americans will agree with you over a long enough time frame, and with enough passion, to elect a majority of the government which agrees with you on that issue. Do you want that duly elected government to actually be able to do the thing you want, or not?
As for your general philosophy of gridlock being good, I think there are plenty of examples throughout history of the government doing things that came out well. Think of whoever your favorite 20th century US president was. Did that president, and his administration and the congress, do things?
*Obviously I’m oversimplifying, and there’s a reason that constitutional amendments take so much more than just 51% of the populace, and why there are protected classes and constitutional tests yada yada yada.
If they hadn’t been filibustered they would have been passed, thus the filibuster, and thus why I think that it would have been worse.
That wasn’t even coherent. You seem to be saying that it’s the Democrats’ fault that the Republicans filibustered virtually everything. If you mean all those bills would have passed otherwise, well, duh, that’s the fucking point.
“Gentleman’s agreements” require gentlemen. Since in order to be elected to the Senate one has to be an utter scoundrel to begin with, there are no such creatures there.
That is the point. I’m glad you’re getting it now. I don’t want anything to pass. I stated that right up front. That you couldn’t read what is written in black and white in post 74 isn’t my problem.
I think the problem is that the position is what you’d expect a dim child to have, and you’re certainly not stupid.
So it seems like you must mean something else. You’re a victim to your ideology. It’s making you advocate drivel.
What ideology is that, exactly? You guys always like to try to pigeonhole me and you never, ever get it right. I’m curious what you think.
I’d have to assume you have an ideological desire for “small government” since you don’t want the government to do anything.
I’d also assume that you’re ideologically consumed by the concept that nothing Democrats want to pass could possibly be a good idea.
Whatever you think, it’s forcing you to advocate irrational nonsense. And that can’t be good.
I don’t object to the idea that government has a role in our lives, and I think that “small government” as it usually means is a fantasy. That said, the less the Congress does the better, because they usually screw it up. After 9/11 they had a golden opportunity to get some things through with bipartisan support, and sure enough they did: the PATRIOT Act. And that is approximately the last bipartisan thing they’ve done. Imagine, then, why I’m not too keen on anything else.
Nothing any of them do could possibly be a good idea.
What I want and what actually happens are two different things. I want a million dollars and a pony. Will I get them? No. So now you get to tell me how cataclysmically stupid I am for wishing for something I can never have. Won’t stop me from wishing for it, any more than it stops people from wishing for gun control or abortion bans or any of the other things that they can’t have.
So, to sum up, I enjoy gridlock. Most of what they manage to force through is fortunately diluted to the point that it draws comments such that it was pointless to pass it to begin with. I like that. If nobody “wins”, we all win, rather than just “liberals” or “conservatives”.
Based on what Lobohan said, and your response, I’d say he has you nailed.
If you don’t want things done, you must think this is the best possible world. Utterly ignorant.
That’s the response of an angry child. Not an adult opinion.
Work hard, and it could happen.
You aren’t stupid for wishing for things you can’t have. You’re acting stupid because you wish for the necessary work of government to be stopped because you have a vapid and childish ideology that’s based on ignorant anger.
It’s a bad thing to be genuinely stupid. You’re ever worse, because you *choose *to act stupid.
Whatever you say.
I know you aren’t philosophically a Tea Partier, but intellectually you’re acting like one. The idea that the government doing nothing is better than the government doing anything is something only that only a stupid person would say.
I can name ten difficult problems right off the top of my head where doing nothing simply isn’t an option. One example: in order for us to have next generation wireless thingies that will come about in the next 10-15 years, the government will need to reallocate and auction off spectrum. If that doesn’t happen, new wireless gadgets won’t be sold here, and you’ll bitch and moan in ten years about how everyone else in the world gets to have the Android Mindreader or the iPhone 15 or whatever, but Americans don’t; and then you’ll blame the government. There’s lots more issues like this that simply need to be dealt with or shit doesn’t move forward.
My guess is that either you’ve got your panties in a twist about government lately because you are a dyed in the wool gun nut, or you’ve been getting stupider. Am I in the ballpark here?
You’ve been here this long and still attempt to fight ignorance on Airman’s scale? :rolleyes: I offer no response to Airman Doors, USAF except to ask him to save middleman’s effort and post his “thoughts” directly to the Stupid Republican ideas thread.
Oh I see. You’re one of the crypto-Islamo-Marxists who worship our Kenyan Emperor. 
And yet the system worked just fine for decades until suddenly 61 votes were required to pass ANYTHING.
It is. Look, if you give your kid a slice of cake everytime they ask, who’s responsible for them being fat? Since Ried allows the procedural filibuster everytime the Pubs ask for one, the Pubs would be stupid to NOT “filibuster” whenever they have 41 votes.
I hate to tell you this, but it ain’t the Republicans doing it.