The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[Gemini Cricket]

Frist 12/13/2004

Republicans say that Democrats have abused the filibuster by blocking 10 of the president's 229 judicial nominees in his first term -- although confirmation of Bush nominees exceeds in most cases the first-term experience of presidents dating to Ronald Reagan. Describing the filibusters as intolerable, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has hinted he may resort to an unusual parliamentary maneuver, dubbed the "nuclear option," to thwart such filibusters.
"One way or another, the filibuster of judicial nominees must end," he said in a speech to the Federalist Society last month, labeling the use of filibusters against judicial nominees a "formula for tyranny by the minority."

Article

It sounds pretty clear to me that they wanted filibustering of all Bush's nominees to end.

[Alex]

Which is the same as getting "rid of the filibuster altogether" how?

Even if implemented, the rules change that some Republicans were after in relation to presidential nominations would not have prevented the filibuster of a non-binding position statement.

As for the square dance that happens whenever power changes sides, I heartily recommend the final story of last weekend's This American Life (available as a podcast). It was a very amusing look at how both sides do it, both sides then bitch about the other side doing it, and both sides pretend that it is somehow worse this time around.

[Gemini Cricket]

I think you totally know what I mean when I posted what I posted. I know you're not obtuse. I'm not about to be your audience while you lecture this board yet again about semantics and then ask for an explanation of each and every one of my words.

[Alex]

I asked for no explanation, I simply disagreed with what you said. You then lectured me on how I was wrong and in so doing highlighted the error of your original statement.

I don't have a secret decoder ring to let me know that when GC says "altogether" he means "not altogether but rather in a certain limited situation." If you could provide me with a table of such things it would help avoid these periodic flare-ups where you get annoyed that I assume you mean what you say.

And I honestly have no idea what you meant to say since the alternative (since Republicans opposed X they are hypocritical to support Y) doesn't even make sense. So color me obtuse.

[Gemini Cricket]

Re-read post #2173.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

He is not a state climatologist.

So here we have a guy, who is doing the job of the "State Clilatologist", has been reffered to as the "State Climatologist" by journalists and State Officials and even gets his salary from a "State" supported Institution.

...and because of the title thing our governor, who loves to complain that we don't have enough money so he can't cut taxes or even let us keep our kickers, want to pay another person to do this job.

Two full time teachers probably could be hired for the money he is going to waste on this attempt to silence a dissenting voice.

[Gemini Cricket]

Gavin Newsom cheated on his wife with another woman?
Awww, there goes my hopes for being First Lady of San Francisco.

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

Gavin Newsom cheated on his wife with another woman?
Awww, there goes my hopes for being First Lady of San Francisco.

Gavin Newsom divorced his wife a couple of years ago. He shtooped the wife of his campaign manager. Newsom remains single, so anything's possible.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

It also sounds a lot like the treatment of those who, despite massive evidence to the contrary continue to believe that the world is flat and the earth is the center of the universe.

I would hope that a state paleontologist who believes that dinosaur bones are a joke played by god to trick us would be fired (and would find it difficult to get a job). I would hope that a doctor who literally (and always) believes that laughter is the best medicine would find tenure difficult to acquire. A USDA agricultural biologist proposing Lamarckian genetics shouldn't be allowed within a mile of a corn field (see Lysenko, Trofim).

Like it or not, a view that the earth is not warming is way outside the mainstream. And while less so, disputing its anthrogenic nature is still pretty far outside the mainstream and in a very small minority.

Academic freedom is important in a university setting when it comes to direct state employees, the state should have people squarely in the mainstream.

I say that with absolutely no knowledge of the specific case in question.

Absolutly!

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

Re-read post #2173.

Ok, I have. I stand by post #2174.

Or, when you said #2174 did you mean something else and I'm just supposed to know what you meant to say?

I think you know why you and I have trouble conversing, but I really don't know how to fix it. The way it seems to me is that you write things and you think the fundamentally important thing about it is the feeling that went into it and not so much what it actually says.

Whereas I have no idea what feelings went into it so I rely on what it actually says. I still have (and this gods honest truth, not some attempt to get you to say something I can further pounce on) no idea what you meant to say other than what you actually said.