…It’s a great thing.
-
Not being able to block a filibuster does not mean we have “legislative gridlock”.
-
The Republicans didn’t have a filibuster-proof majority during the last eight years, and were still able to pass just about any fucktarded bill they wanted to. I won’t go far as to say that everything that was passed during the last eight years was idiotic, because I’m sure they passed a resolution condemning Hamas or something.
Thank you for your input, Mr. Hoover.
From Wiki:
Republicans seem to have no qualms about using the filibuster to create gridlock.
Let’s see if I can work my way through this – maybe it will cure my insomnia. 
No, but I don’t remember Clinton making a big deal out of being a bigger patriot than his opponents. I was in middle school at the time, I admit, but I remember more talk about education and the environment and not so much flag-waving.
Who says you can’t attack a war hero? It’s just dickish to cast aspersions on their record. Some people did joke about how many planes he lost and the amount of time he spent banging on the drum of “I WAS A POW”, but his opponent was always quick to call McCain a great patriot with whom he disagreed. McCain did the same, which was points in his favor.
Likelihood that stupid comments by one’s opponent will elicit more eye-rolling and smirking than stupid comments by one’s ally: 97%. Doesn’t matter what side you’re on. That’s a non-starter.
Let’s pretend for the sake of argument that Wright’s rants are equivalent to Hagee’s statements that New Orleans deserved Katrina and the Nazis were a good thing for the Jews.
Actually, I’m having a hard time with that.
I do remember Obama stepping away from Wright after some of his comments, though. “But he wouldn’t have if Wright hadn’t come up in the press!” I hear you say. Well, no. He had more pressing matters to attend to. It would be odd to get up on a podium and say “My fellow Americans, before we get started, I want to read a list of people I know with whom I disagree. I have arranged it alphabetically for your convenience.”
I think those did get substantiated, didn’t they? It was a while ago and I’m a young’un.
No, it’s idiotic no matter who does it to whom.
Depends on the image you’re trying to portray. I admit I wouldn’t be shocked if Hillary Clinton didn’t pass up the Secretary of State position if she had a special-needs newborn, but she was always clear that she wouldn’t be the at-home-baking-cookies sort of woman anyway. I suppose I’d expect more of the emphasis on making sure the kids are taken care of from someone who takes every opportunity to spotlight her family.
And no, I don’t like it when anyone else does it, either, though the Obamas have some mightily cute kids. It’s also still kind of stupid.
Mostly the annoyance is at hypocrisy – homophobic preachers ending up being homosexual, people who preach family values who have a daughter pregnant out of wedlock, adulterous folks who stand proudly on their religion. I know you’ll find this as shocking as I do, Shodan, but EVERYONE is more likely to catch the mote in their neighbor’s eye than the beam in their own. I respect your awesomeness, but please do not pretend that you and yours are immune to this. I sure as heck am not, and it takes a lot of work for me to step back and say “I appreciate Mrs. Palin sticking to her guns” or “Biden does not know when to shut his crazy mouth”.
As for Chambliss, ehh. He’s not doing much to affect me. Struck me as kind of slimy in that ad I saw, but I could happily attribute that to his being a career politician.
True word, jest. All that.
With the current state and recent history of the GOP in mind.
Any decent GOP would rip their own guts out beside the public highway at noon.
That’s nice, Do you remember McCain repudiating Hagee?
No, they didn’t.
Maybe there’s the problem - I pay little attention to image, and go more for substance.
Again, we can agree to disagree - if HRC wants to sneer at SAHMs, and that gets her a pass, I can do no more than shrug.
Of course, if you have realistic data - not anecdotes, realistic data - that show that Palin spotlighted her family more after getting the VP nod than Hilary did during her campaign, then we can re-examine the issue.
Again, please note that I said realistic data. Simply listing campaign stops is selective perception (on your part). An accurate overall count is necessary. Otherwise, as noted, it is mere uninformed opinion.
And since the SDMB is so full of yellow dog Democrats, committed liberals, and outright crazies, and since IOKIADDI forms the solid foundation of so much political “thinking” hereabouts, what I stated is (of course) basically true.
Regards,
Shodan
Out of curiosity, Shodan, does my anecdote have any bearing on your opinion of Chambliss? Or can he do no wrong, being a Republican?
Mr. Hoover. I assume President Hoover, who accelerated the Great Depression through government intervention? Followed by President Roosevelt who made it worse and longer by doing the same thing? I am confused at what you are attempting to convey here, because you are the one advocating Mr. Hoover’s policies, not me. Your Hoover reference doesn’t make any sense.
Yes, let’s:
A drug abuser should never run for office unless it’s Bush. You have to have a solid war record unless it’s Bush. Your candidate must have a long history in an executive position unless it’s Sarah Palin. Executive experience is defined to mean a governorship or a presidency unless it’s McCain. Bringing up a candidate’s past crimes and political mistakes, like being one of the Keating Five, is taboo but it’s fine if the other guy once waved hello to someone with a funny name.
Getting the picture?
Sounds like Mr. Obama’s plans, doesn’t it?
Good one! Oh. Dear God, you’re serious.
Does anyone other than you seriously believe that the New Deal made the Depression worse? (I’ll admit that the consensus is that it didn’t do much to help). Did you get your degree in economics via a correspondence course offered by Crazy Go Nuts University?
Hoover accelerated the Great Depression by not doing anything other than repeatedly telling people that recovery was right around the corner. I think he might even have suggested that “the fundamentals of the economy are strong”, or somesuch…
No. But I just looked it up, and that certainly altered my view.
Sure, but the number of cloture votes is not necessarily representative of the number of filibusters.
One of the common right-wing memes is actually a claim that it’s fundamentally unfair to point out that someone is a hypocrite – what they preach is more important than what they practice, dontcha know…
RNATB, of course I’m serious. Considering the situation we’re in, I’m deadly serious. First of all, you really don’t have a very good grasp of history, unless you consider Hoover increasing Federal spending by 50% starting in 1929 is “doing nothing”? As for the other, it is pretty much agreed that the New Deal did prolong the depression by the increasing tax rates, protectionist tax policies, the artificial support of wages and a host of other ways. One thing that these methods have in common is that BHO has proposed doing the exact same things this time around-and it will have the exact same effect. I suggest you read The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression or New Deal policies and the persistence of the Great Depression: a general equilibrium analysis if you’re interested in learning more.