1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Filibuster compromise

Discussion in 'The OT' started by pjmrt, May 23, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. May 27, 2005 #81 of 132
    bmarkel

    bmarkel Mentor

    33
    0
    Apr 27, 2005
    No, if Frist brings up the nominees (and he should) the Democratic leadership will filabuster and then we will be back to the constitutonal option being employed.
     
  2. May 27, 2005 #82 of 132
    Ryan

    Ryan Icon

    622
    0
    Apr 24, 2002

    Ya mean like this :

     
  3. May 27, 2005 #83 of 132
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    And the next time you will support moving nominees out ot committee so they can get an up or down vote? Now that Bush has gotten to place his nominees in the 63 seats that remained vacant during Clinton's term because they never got an up or down vote. No, I'm sure things will change, and you will be against a Democrat president naming his own nominees and getting an up or down vote, and you will see it as a perfectly reasonable position.
     
  4. May 27, 2005 #84 of 132
    Geronimo

    Geronimo Native American Potentate DBSTalk Gold Club

    8,303
    0
    Mar 23, 2002

    If he does that we will have an issue. But I see nothing that indicates he will.
     
  5. May 27, 2005 #85 of 132
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    The problem is that people like people like bmarkel, hardliners on both sides, don't want to see a compromise. The Senate was designed by the framers of the constitution to be a body where compromise took place. This was the tradition for several hundred years. In 1994, the spirit of compromise died.
     
  6. May 27, 2005 #86 of 132
    Ryan

    Ryan Icon

    622
    0
    Apr 24, 2002
    >> then we will be back to the constitutonal option

    Why not call it the Nuclear option like the republicans originally did? (Or did they fool you on that too?)
     
  7. May 27, 2005 #87 of 132
    Geronimo

    Geronimo Native American Potentate DBSTalk Gold Club

    8,303
    0
    Mar 23, 2002

    I think that obviously the words "advuise and consent" require interpretation. Sen Frist obviosuly has a different interpreation of the meaning now vs his vote against cloture in the filibuster against Judge Paez but so do the Democrats who were upset at his satnce back then.


    I just see no evidence that he won't live with this compromise even if he does not like it. As foir the mandate of the 55 Republican Senators well 7 of them were part of the gang of 14. I have no idea how those 7 would interprete their mandate of push came to shove.
     
  8. May 27, 2005 #88 of 132
    Nick

    Nick Retired, part-time PITA DBSTalk Club

    21,868
    189
    Apr 23, 2002
    The...
    Stick to what you do best, preacher, predicting the past. Your divine ability to divine coming events is non-existent, and is no better than your luck at predicting the outcome of presidential elections.

    You have a better chance of converting your next flock to socialism than (not then) you do predicting my position on the next (Republican) president's crop of judicial nominees. OYOH, I just might get converted by a lumbering herd of proselyting dems in my senility and end up thinking like you. :eek2:

    :D
     
  9. May 27, 2005 #89 of 132
    jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Estate tax = Death Tax
    Social Security privatization = Personal accounts
    Nuclear option = Constitutional option

    Anyone detecting a pattern here?

    And of course the Newspeak Grand Daddy of them all:
    Department of War = Department of Defense
    :nono:
     
  10. May 27, 2005 #90 of 132
    Nick

    Nick Retired, part-time PITA DBSTalk Club

    21,868
    189
    Apr 23, 2002
    The...
    Didn't they once have a missile called the Peacemaker or Peacekeeper? The UN dispatches "peacekeepers" around the world, yet war seems to be the norm.

    Have we gone from "Tear down this wall" to "Tear down this world"? First time we go 'Nuke to Nuke' with some rinky-dink two-bit psychotic ruler, the toothpaste is out of the tube and it's all over, depending on which way the breeze is blowing.
     
  11. May 27, 2005 #91 of 132
    jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Clear Skies anyone?
    Healthy Forests?

    Regarding toothpaste, We will never keep it in the tube as long as anyone maintains a nuclear arsenal, including US. As previously stated, the "Nuclear Club" is not invite only. In the past fifteen or so years, the breakup of the Soviet Union instantly doubled membership in the "Club". A few have been persuaded(bribed might be a better term) to relinguish them but have been made up by the likes of N. Korea, Pakistan, India and Iran. The remaining former Soviet nuclear states appear to be the most unstable, most dictatorial and most Islamic. Our current strategy seems to be to attack those least likely, and proven least likely, to have any nuclear capability whatsoever, Iraq, and perhaps Syria next.

    The only viable option is to ban nuclear weapons from ALL countries, gather up all the necessary materials in one place and either destroy or disable it, or encase it in concrete and set up armed guards for the next 15-20 thousand years.

    This is a "Genie" that never should have been let out of the bottle(or toothpaste tube if you prefer). The only way to recontain it is to prohibit possession by EVERYONE and strictly enforce it.
     
  12. May 27, 2005 #92 of 132
    Nick

    Nick Retired, part-time PITA DBSTalk Club

    21,868
    189
    Apr 23, 2002
    The...
    Yeah, well, go ahead and pass all the international treaties you want, but 'when nukes are outlawed, only terrorists will have nukes'. The problem is, without an identifiable state or geographical equivalent, terrorists are hard to nuke out of existence, especially when they're driving around downtown America with a suitcase. They know where we are, we don't necessarily know where "they" are.

    Where are Jack Bauer and the CTU crew when you really, really need them?

    As I've said before, the future is not what it used to be.
     
  13. May 27, 2005 #93 of 132
    Geronimo

    Geronimo Native American Potentate DBSTalk Gold Club

    8,303
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    I think that it is ironic that this thread has sort of become a filibuster of its own. Anyone up for a cloture vote?
     
  14. May 27, 2005 #94 of 132
    jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Terrorist groups, by their very nature of being clandestine, mobil and not permanently settled on a geographic piece of real estate, are physically incapable of producing the necessary materials and hardware. Only nations, under the guise of sovereignty and self-determination, can produce reliable weapons. And then only after years of effort and massive expenditures. It took the US years and billions of dollars(1940's dollars!) to produce enough plutonium for Fat Man and Little Boy. And we've poured trillions down the nuclear drain since. After years of effort, N. Korea may have enough fissionable material for 4-6 primitive warheads, none of them probably small enough to be launched by their largest missile. Iran, again after years of trying, probably doesn't have enough for one.

    So the fact is, if no nation has nuclear weapons, it is virtually impossible for any "terrorist" group to obtain one. The obvious solution therefore is for NO NATION to have them. And as mentioned before, it would be easy enough to stipulate, and I believe everyone would find it acceptable, that we(the USA) would be the last to have them.
     
  15. May 27, 2005 #95 of 132
    Geronimo

    Geronimo Native American Potentate DBSTalk Gold Club

    8,303
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    It sounds like something that would work just great if no ne cheated or thought someone else might. Maybe it is my Native American blood talking but I don't trust everyone who signs a treaty.

    this a long way from a judicial filibuster though. Maybe we have a nuclear option all our own.
     
  16. May 27, 2005 #96 of 132
    DS0816

    DS0816 Guest

    305
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    Bogy,

    A lot of what you wrote I agree. But I wouldn't bet on a Democrat winning the White House in 2008. The way it's going, Dems are on the losing end of the stick -- and Republicans are gaining. Part of this is the Electoral College, of course, and then part of it is the perception of what each party stands for -- and Dems are in an identity crisis. Problem with the G.O.P. now is white religion -- but, then again, some likewise would not consider this a problem.
     
  17. May 27, 2005 #97 of 132
    Capmeister

    Capmeister Large Hairless ApeCutting Edge: ECHELON '08

    5,222
    2
    Sep 16, 2003
    Way to early to know who'll win the White House in '08. WAY.
     
  18. May 28, 2005 #98 of 132
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    I'm not sure what you are basing this on? The last election? Have you taken a look at more recent polls? Bush's numbers are incredibly low. So are the numbers for Congress as a whole, but Republicans are especially taking a hit for things like keeping brain dead women in Florida alive, making that a national priority, while the budget goes nuts and gas prices go through the roof. Polls are showing that increasing numbers of voters think there is to much power in the hands of one party. The last time we saw numbers reflecting this much dissatisfaction was before the 1994 election. We had a Democrat president and Democrat majorities in both houses of Congress. People had the same attitudes then as they do now. They do not see adding MORE seats to the party in power as the solution. Traditionally, voters in America have never let the White House, Senate, and the House be held by the same party for any length of time.

    I know that a number of people here think the solution for all our problems is total domination, but you are in the minority. The majority of Americans have never felt this way, and the majority do not feel this way now. I expect the Democrats to pick up seats in the next election. Probably not enough for a majority, but enough to make the margin even more razor thin once again.

    I also think some of the posters here are expressing wishful thinking as far as how much the Democrats are in crisis. Partisan feelings have led many conservative Republicans to discount the leadership of Dean. Dean was the candidate that the others copied. He was the candidate that hit Bush straight on. He was the Democrat candidate that was the most open about his faith. A large segment of his website dealt with his religious stand. He realized the importance of the progressive religious community. But if all you can remember is a guy yelling in what seemed to be a silent room (which was due to a noise cancelling mike, the ONE time I heard it as it really sounded in that room I could barely hear Dean), then go ahead and assume the Democrats will be the same in 2006 as they were in 2004. Complacency is a wonderful thing...for the other party. :lol: After all, it did in the Democrats in 1994. They thought they would easily ride into office on the coat tails of a popular president.
     
  19. May 28, 2005 #99 of 132
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Who is talking only about the White House in 2008? There is another very important election next year.
     
  20. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Briefly, before this thread goes entirely nuclear,:eek: I hear what you're saying.

    But you don't have to rely on treaties. We don't have treaties with NK or Iran and we seem to know every time Kim or a mullah even utters the word uranium. And certainly we know if somebody tests one. Something I think is probably prudent before you go into mass production.:shrug:

    We have other means of detection. In the words of everybody's favorite conservative, "trust, but verify!" Any treaty would have to have regular inspections, "random testing" and a whistleblower program.

    Of course the biggest problem would be getting the good ol' USA to agree. We're not going to want to let damn foeigners into our secret places!:mad: And as you imply, we are(how can I say this politely?) very self-consciously aware of how treaties can be fudged.:blush:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page