Military men are sworn to their loyalty to the country. So, in their case, “…tied very closely to the US…” is understatement. A cleric or religious teacher’s highest loyalty is presumed, reasonably enough, to be unto their respective Deity (however they may envision Her).
Possible, I suppose, that there may be a religion that instructs its communicants and its clergy that it is permissible to have a loyalty that supersedes loyalty to the aforementioned Deity, but I’ve not heard of it.
elucidator, if it helps, I can point you to a Good Book where a prominent fellow said: Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.
Oooh. Snap.
Two more Democratic Senators announced support for the deal (Casey and Coons), putting the declared-supporters at 33 plus 2 “leaners”, for 35 total (34 is needed to protect a veto).
This is a done deal, I think. It’s happening. Now the question is if the Democrats will get enough support to filibuster disapproval of the deal.
Unlikely, and it doesn’t matter.
What worries me is that some might vote against the proposal, but not have the guts to defend the veto, because of the increase in awareness and pressure, plus the full-court-press of publicity from the opposition.
Just voting no takes some guts, but standing up for Obama’s veto might be harder. I’m worried about defections.
Wait a minute. I thought that filibusters were an affront to “regular order”, dysfunctional, and obstructionist.
OMG!! D’Anconia found the plus ten Sword of Liberal Hypocrisy! We’re doomed for sure, now!
It wasn’t hard to find 'round these parts.
Wait, but conservatives like Ted Cruz used to talk about how important the filibuster was for our country. Now it’s a bad thing? My, I’m so confused!
I’ll tell you, hoss, that if hypocrisy is a major sin, I have even less chance than I thought. So maybe when you get to Heaven, you can put in a word for me.
Beyond that, if something like hypocrisy might go any distance at all to prevent war, I’m for it.
And if I thought eating some shit would help… well, here’s my spoon, here’s my grin, mmmm good! I’ll even take a heapin’ helpin’ of hostility.
Nope. Excessive use of the filibuster is a bad thing, but, when used in proper moderation (i.e., pre-2008 levels) it’s a tool of ordinarily debatable value. Some will still oppose it, but most of us consider it a valuable tool to promote supermajority consensus, of the sort we’d kind of like to have in, say, Supreme Court Justices.
And, for all of that, show us a direct quote where ANYONE has called the filibuster itself “an affront to regular order, dysfunctional, and obstructionist.” G’wan. Dare ya.
It would be hypocritical of him to do so. (Says so in scriptures.)
Agreed, but…can I bake it first? Kill the disease bacteria? (Oh, wait, that’s what the filibuster is for in the first place!)
I suppose if you kill all the germs, its still more or less organic, but would it still be pro-biotic?
I can see good reasons to approve of the traditional filibuster, kinda like a public demonstration of sincerity and conviction, that the issue is so very important that reasonable men are driven to to extremes. But when it becomes a formality of rules, where simply the invocation of filibuster has the same effect as the genuine article…
“The motion is now up for a vote…”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer a desperate and quixotic plea and to register extreme and adamant opposition.”
“Duly noted. Therefore, the motion will not be voted upon.”
“Thank you, Mr. Speaker.”
Cite that I said this?
Actually, I think that having the deal with Iran will accelerate the disintegration of the mullah’s regime. Iran is a young nation-and the students and young people do not want this repressive regime. Increased trade with the West will bring about the abandonment of reactionary Islam…in another generation, the rule of the mullahs will be a memory.
I think this is the best case scenario, but I wouldn’t go so far as to predict it.
Public opinion on the Iran deal is turning brutal for the administration:
You mean the CNN poll in which a majority approve of the deal?