It is not!
wait…
Ornstein is not a conservative and “in any real way” seems to leave it open for debate.
Would you at least agree with that? Come on…throw me a bone here.
PLease limit all ‘gang of X’ to CCP politics where it has a REAL meaning. Thank you.
No. If you aren’t even going to address the substance of his article, there’s no debate here.
He used the correct words. The same words used in the cited article and many others, not to mention countless news stories on TV.
So, perhaps you’d like to now apologize to the OP. It’s the correct thing to do, much as you’d prefer otherwise.
It’s not what used to be the nuclear option. It is something trivial that conservatives are calling the nuclear option. Anything that Dems do is portrayed as outrageous because it sways low-information and ideological voters that the Dems are being evil again. It even worked on you.
It’s not his fault that the OP doesn’t follow news enough to understand what the nuclear option has been until this latest non-issue.
The solution is not to eliminate the filibuster, but rather to return it to it’s original meaning. A few Senators suddenly having to actually physically stand there on the floor and keep talking again, or end the filibuster, instead of just ‘proclaiming’ one would reduce the use of it considerably…
If the Republicans were the only ones referring to this as the “nuclear option”, you’d have a point. But they’re not, so you don’t.
So, by your reasoning, if an upset party hack (we’ll leave which party out as irrelevant) picks up a potato and calls it a “turnip”, then the press repeats that it is a turnip, and then folks who don’t know better refer to it as a turnip again… it is now indeed a turnip?.. Strange.
How about baked turnips for supper?
I think that’s pretty much how it works. It helps if Rush Limbaugh or Al Gore (depending upon which party) explains it to folks.
Oh, boy. I’m sure you’re aware that the term is a metaphor, derived from something else else, like the flipping the switch and sending off nuclear warheads. You do know that right? So your analogy fails miserably. And it’s not the OP that decided to use the term, it’s friggin EVERYWHERE. YOU don’t want it used that way, too bad. If you don’t like it a whole lot, go complain to virtually every news outlet there is.
Sheeze. The shit some of you glom on to…
There was a whole lot of press coverage of the huge number of shark attacks a few years back, or the plastic guns that are entirely undetectable to airport metal detectors.
Sometimes the press gets it wrong. If you were interested in the substance of this issue, you’d be commenting on the expert opinion I linked to earlier. But no, you are in essence saying, “If it is in a newspaper, it MUST be true!!”
The problem is, it has been shown that it is not true. And your response seems to be, “But it was in SEVERAL newspapers!!”
No. My point is that is a metaphor, for some seemingly drastic action being taken. The notion that this is some right-wing conspiracy is nonsense. Or that the OP is responsible for painting things in a way that has been conjured. Here are a few uses of the term referring to what Reid did:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/07/8205230-congress-floor-fight
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/nuclear-option/2011/10/
Here are some more using the term in a way that has nothing to do with what Reid did, nor what was done back in 2005:
http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/2011/09/16/bank-of-americas-nuclear-option.html
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/sam_amick/09/17/nba.labor.decertification/index.html
http://blog.reidreport.com/2011/03/wi-gop-uses-nuclear-option-to-jam-through-anti-union-bill/
The point is that the hyper-sensitive left cannot abide that Reid & Co. might do anything that is “drastic”. That everything must be sound and sensible. And if language—used by the mainstream media—inadvertently does so, well, those wadded panties will cause them to set things straight!!! (as they want them to be). And thenone of the foot soldiers goes after the OP as if he went out of his way to make something up. That’s just chidish bullshit.
But, by all means, feel free to join him. :rolleyes:
Mountains out of molehills much? That particular metaphor is overused almost to the point of triteness. Nothing wrong with pointing out it’s use as unwarranted.
Next, changing a baby’s dirty diaper will be called a “nuclear option”… if it generates attention and sells newspapers.
Perhaps labelling the baby’s act of filling said diaper might be more apropos? Or at least closer to the use you are defending.
Words and phrases have meaning. When they cease to have meaning they should be discarded.
It seems that this would be more intelligently directed to those who get in a tizzy about it’s use and go after people for it. I accept that it is a metaphor, one that is used from time to time. I’m not the one whining.
This is your response to my comment, quoted below?
No. That was part of my response to your comment. Odd that you couldn’t figure that out for yourself. Hmmm. Oh, well.
I do not have to address the substance of the article to point out that you are wrong about Ornstein being a conservative…get off your high horse and admit that you were wrong.
How does this belong in the Elections forum? (It’s not for everything political.)
You really do want to grow up to be a mod some day don’t you Brainy G …where would you like it?
When I saw that you posted I thought just maybe you’d demand some intellectual honesty from Ravenman … mods need to be fair you know.
C’mon Ravenman…when you admit that Norman Ornstein is not a conservative (bonus points for explaining how you could be so wrong) I promise I will read his article and comment on it.