Free Markets, Free People


Harry Reid opens Pandora’s box

And, he and Democrats will eventually pay for that:

The partisan battles that have paralyzed Washington in recent years took a historic turn Thursday, as Senate Democrats eliminated filibusters for most presidential nominations, severely curtailing the political leverage of the Republican minority in the Senate and assuring an escalation of partisan warfare.

Saying that “enough is enough,” President Obama welcomed the end of what he called the abuse of the Senate’s advise and consent function, which he said had turned into “a reckless and relentless tool” to grind the gears of government to a halt.

Of course Obama and Reid (along with Biden) were some of the more outspoken defenders of the filibuster when Democrats were in the minority.  Minority rights, you know.  Blah, blah, blah …. words without end, words without meaning.

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV): “…the so-called nuclear option… attempt to rewrite Senate rules so we would be another House of Representatives; that we would throw away the Constitution of the United States so the Federal courts could be packed.” (Sen. Reid, Congressional Record, S.8911, 9/5/06)

REID: “We stand united against an outrageous abuse of power that would pack the courts with out-of-the-mainstream judges.” (Sen. Reid, Congressional Record, S.5198, 5/16/05)

Now, of course, it is an “obstruction” and we’re likely to get exactly what Harry Reid railed against then.

Well, we’ll see how that works out for them when they’re in the minority again and another party is sitting the the White House, won’t we?

Reid – not smart enough see beyond today and the fact that he has just set it up for Democrats of tomorrow to pay for this in ways they never imagined.

If we could only outlaw their whiny cries of outrage when this eventually bites them in the butt, I’d be satisfied.

~McQ

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks

141 Responses to Harry Reid opens Pandora’s box

  • “If we could only outlaw their whiny cries of outrage when this eventually bites them in the butt, I’d be satisfied.”

    Oh no, when their pitiful pleadings rise, I will relish every single last whine, wail and lament.
    I will, with great thrill repeat phrases like “We won” and “elections have consequences”.
    “No more obstruction!”, “No more gridlock!”  will be the watchwords.

    When we have our country back, maybe I’ll feel more forgiving, but not until then, not until they’ve seen their socialist experiment(s) burned and buried in the trash heap of history.
    And woe betide any Republicans who go squishy and try to accommodate these ruthless bastards at this point.

    • “It’s settled law” is one of my new-found favs.
      That and, “What is best in life…?”
      “To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women.”  Of course, so many of them have no women, but you get the idea…
       

  • This is a clear admission that the division of powers is not only dead but spectacularly cremated, with judicial appointees formally reduced to partisan functionaries.

  • What are the chances they’re trying to force things in as quickly as possible and, if they lose in 2014, they try to just change the rules back?

    Are they that brazen?

    • Damn right they are.

    • Urk…..ugh…..
      In fact, I bet that is exactly what happens.   I’ll bet a bottle of decent single malt scotch on it.

    • They’d have plenty of time to do the switch back between the 2014 elections and the next Congress actually taking their seats in 2015, wouldn’t they?  And then if the Republican Senators tried to do the same thing, the Democrats and the media would skewer them.  Low Information Voters would let them get away with it, too, sadly.

      • Precisely what I was thinking.

        They’ll lament how the Democrats had to do it to overcome the evil Republicans who were halting government.  And how they ‘fixed’ it once the danger from Republican ‘obstruction’ had passed (that is, AFTER the Democrats lost the November elections) and how the Republicans are restoring it as sour grapes and because they’re evil and mean and don’t care about the importance of protecting the rights of the minority’.   And how the Republic will be destroyed now if the Republicans ‘go nuclear’.

        • Who cares? Once the genie is out of the bottle, do what ya gotta.
          51 votes to expel Reid from the Senate
          51 votes to repeal FAILcare
          51 votes to put a young and rabid anti-abortion SCOTUS justice on
          51 to do all sorts of things to gut the left and their agenda

          Burn now, repent later.

          • As much as I’d like to see Reid expelled (or voted out), it would actually take 2/3′s vote of the Senate to do this (Art. 1, Sect. 5). The rest though is correct.  Dems may regret this if the GOP grows a spine and uses this precedence to their advantage once regaining the majority.  A pretty big “if” to be sure.

        • It kind of sounds like you are really saying that Obama is not competent, and he needed the GOP to sign on to his project in order for it to be done well, because with the GOP comes competence. Since the GOP didn’t help, but at the same time was unable to actively hinder development of the website since they weren’t involved, the failure is all the Democrats. So if the competent GOP had participated, then you think it would have worked.

          Your reasoning goes against your explicit point, but I get what you were really saying, even under the partisan B.S. The GOP is competent, and the Democrats can’t accomplish anything on their own, they need a willing GOP to help them get things done. The GOP, on the other hand, can get things done with or without the Democrats. That is the point you have proven.

  • He didn’t go far enough.  The only reason the filibuster is possible is because Aaron Burr thought it unnecessary to have a procedure to call the question in the Senate.  He figured they’d know when debate was done and vote.  The filibuster was very rare until the 70s when the rules were changed.  The abuse of the filibuster created an untenable gridlock creator (and both parties share blame) making it seem like you needed 60 votes to pass anything mildly controversial.  That is contrary to the historical traditions of the Senate and the filibuster.  I’ve long argued that the filibuster should either be like it was in the past (they literally had to keep talking) or ended.  I’m totally fine with both parties being able to use majorities to pass most things, that is the way it is in most industrial democracies.  We two houses with power (many places only have one), a President with power (many places have the head of parliament also the chief executive), there is no reason for added gridlock by abuse of the filibuster.  I say eliminate it COMPLETELY: http://scotterb.wordpress.com/2013/10/30/end-the-filibuster/

    • Yeah, right, uh, you might want to educate yourself then and see what the Senate itself says…..
      http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm

      I mean, I realize YOU know more than the Senate but, you might want to consider their opinion on this.
      Oddly enough, they don’t mention Aaron Burr, or that it was ‘very rare’ until the 70′s.   They have, apparently, some alternative quantum, and perhaps REAL history they’re referring to.

      “Long once held the Senate floor for 15 hours. The record for the longest individual speech goes to South Carolina’s J. Strom Thurmond who filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957 .”


      Oh,
      welcome back,
      You hack.

      • Gee “the Senate” can talk?  I linked to my blog that shows proof that in recent years the filibuster has been abused like never before.  As a political scientist, I find it dysfunctional and have always thought it should be abolished or used like it was before rules were changed in the 70s.  I also think state governments should choose Senators, but its even a longer shot that we’ll go back to that one.   Your website doesn’t say anything that disproves me.  Perhaps you should make your own argument rather than pretend that a website says something it doesn’t.  It is so dishonest to point to a website and pretend it disproves something when it doesn’t.

        • Uh yeah, asshat, it says what it says.
          What I pointed out was it does not say what you do.

          You really can’t read for comprehension can you.

          And nice joust at the Constitution there senor Quickoats, I’m just thrilled to know we agree about not electing senators.
           

          • You’re lying.  It does not contradict me at all.  If it did, you could say what I said that was wrong.  You can’t.  You lose.

          • I see.
            So, when I say the web site page the Senate has posted says whatever it says, I’m lying.
            When I say the web site page the Senate has posted does not cover the things you mentioned in your inept unattributed rip off of the talking points by Moyer, I’m lying.
            When I indicate that you, and only you, mentioned electing Senators (for some strange reason…), I’m lying?

            Or was it my calling you Senor Quickoats, when we all know your real name?
            Or am I lying when I say I disagree with the 17th Amendment, which means I actually agree with YOU?

            So, the rules change in 1917 doesn’t count because you skipped it?  But the rule to lower the margin for cloture in 1975 does?
            What?

            Oh, or is that that I said you need to do more research?
            Is that why I lose?
            ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!

            :)
            You stick with that there skippy, I’m sure it’ll be worth something someday.
            Tell ya what, you print this victory out, stick a little gold star on it, hang it on your office wall.
            Everyone will be impressed with your ‘victory’.

          • Well.

            THAT was some MASTER PROJECTIONIST projection, right there.

            Imagine.  Erp calling someone a “liar”.

          • Ah, so the Senate website doesn’t cover all that I do in my post.  You aren’t claiming anything I posted is wrong, only that it isn’t covered in that short Senate website.   Nothing I said is contradicted.  So really, you have nothing – but a rather slimey wimpy effort at attack.   Bottom line: you tried to make it seem like the Senate site went against mine, but now you admit it doesn’t.  Unless you can point to something I got wrong, you were just being greasy.

          • I’m pretty sure I covered that above, right?

            Insults? From the guy who swears he’s above that :)

            Victory.  Like I said you go ahead and post that on the wall.
            It’s such a pleasure to see how much ‘winning’ means to you.  Pretty desperate skippy, probably points to a sad history of losing if you measure this as a victory that matters.

             

          • Ah, forgot to ask you to id my ‘lie’, that’s kind of an interesting little psychosis you have there.

            Lie/liar.  You keep using that word…..

          • But I note that you don’t point to anything I said that was wrong.  You bob, weave, slither, duck, but it’s all noise.  You have nothing of substance to offer.  You just don’t have the honesty to admit it, so you make a lot of noise.  Oh well, your problem, not mine.

          • you really don’t read for comprehension at all do you Scott.

            I admitted it.   Let’s see, this makes three times now.

            Not only do you not ‘win’ very often, you’re not even very good at it when you do.

            And I’m still kinda interested in knowing how having an opinion you don’t like, or even an opinion that, in this case was incorrect (that you don’t know what you’re talking about) makes me a liar.  Like I said, you use that with the same frequency the letter E occurs in english words.

    • He didn’t go far enough.

      >>>> Don’t worry. The next GOP majority leader will.  Toodles!

    • Let’s make sure that pay-back is a mother…following the 2014 election cycle.

      Mary Landrieu is likely the hardest hit by this putche.

      Which, of course, our lil’ goose-stepping bud from the Collectives is TOTALLY down with.

    • PLUS, when the Senate is in Conservative control again, it is time for a top-to-bottom reform of the Federal judiciary…
      to include term limits for ALL Federal judges, and a legislative veto of judicial rulings.
      Remember…
      If you like your Republic, and you vote for Conservatives, you can keep your Republic.
      Otherwise you’re screwed.

      • Not sure you can put in term limits for judges without a constitutional amendment.  Be nice if we could do so for all Federal offices, but it may take a more rigorous effort to achieve.

    • This illustrates one of the dangers of democracy: the winner-take-all aspect of elections and party politics.  In the free sector, where peaceable people use reason to negotiate with each other to make compromises which benefit all those involved in a conflict (otherwise, if you’re not benefiting, why agree to the compromise?), having a majority on one “side” doesn’t give you all of the spoils of plunder.  It just gives you greater leverage.
      In democracy, whoever gets the majority of the legislature/electoral college gets to use force to ram through things which not only fail to benefit opponents, but which may actually be against their interests.  Once the election is over, what matters to people who didn’t vote for the majority party–and, what matters to many who did, who foolishly believed false promises–is disregarded.
      Look at 2000.  Bush got fewer votes, but still got 100% of the power of the office and Gore got 0%.
      Winner take all.
      You not only approve of that, but you want to make it easier for slim margins, even margins in the legislature/electoral college which don’t represent a majority of voters, to have great power, with no restraint.
      Yep, you’re just a cheerleader for authoritarianism.

      • Yep, you’re just a cheerleader for authoritarianism.
        >>>> Nope. We’re cheerleaders for payback.
        Big difference.

        • I was responding to Scott, not you.
          I don’t know of any strong authoritarian streak in you, shark, but the whole notion of “payback” as a way to handle matters is morally repugnant to me. WTF is wrong with people who don’t see “payback” as an ingrained part of the political system as being disastrous for the future?
          “This is why we can’t have nice things.”

          • “…the whole notion of “payback” as a way to handle matters is morally repugnant to me.”
            Because, payback usually hurts non-combatants.
            People like Scott wanted “payback” against the Republicans, evil insurance companies, evil employers who don’t offer enough coverage, etc..  He wanted “payback” against those who resisted the appeal that the US follow the example of Europe in all things, because they’re so hip and wise and all.
            The result of all this “payback”?  People who voted against Obama get screwed under the Unaffordable Care Act, the rising rate of energy, the out-of-control debt fallout, etc..  People who voted for Obama get screwed.  People who voted for a third party get screwed.  People who didn’t vote get screwed.
            Yeah, “payback” is not the way you want to change things.  You change things by stopping that which is unethical and coming up with ideas you can sell to others because you both benefit.  How you do that with a winner-take-all electoral system, poisoned by partisan spite, is anyone’s guess.  I’m going to say that constructive solutions are essentially impossible under such a system (there may be small counter-examples here and there, but more of a one step forward, a thousand steps back type deal).
             

          • but the whole notion of “payback” as a way to handle matters is morally repugnant to me. WTF is wrong with people who don’t see “payback” as an ingrained part of the political system as being disastrous for the future?“This is why we can’t have nice things.
            >>>> To me, it’s not nearly as disastrous as allowing one side – completely lawless, breaking the rules to suit expediency – to keep doing it over and over.
            “Payback” at least has the virtue of inflicting pain on the ones who invited it. And maybe, just maybe enough will learn the lesson to not do it again in the future.  If you have a different solution please let me know – I’ll listen with an open mind. Honest.
             

          • I do not believe in payback or revenge, so please don’t mistake Shark’s desire for payback for anything I seek.  I want the GOP to end the filibuster if it gets power because I’m against the filibuster.  Payback makes no sense to me, it’s not rational but emotional.

          • I do not believe in payback or revenge….

            Anyone who has read you for any length of time knows that you’re all about cheering your team winning (and crowing that you saw it coming all along), and belittling those who criticize unethical government action and corruption.
            Payback is your bread and butter. Either you’re playing the Goebbels game of inverting reality, or you have some sort of cognitive inability to see yourself as you really are.  Narcissistic personality disorder certainly would explain that.

            Payback makes no sense to me, it’s not rational but emotional.

            This from the guy who, in this very comment section, criticizes reason as causing disarray.
            So, is rational thought a good thing, or a bad thing, for you, Scott?

          • Elliot, you lie so shamelessly.  Anyone who reads my blog knows that I go on my principles and beliefs, not on cheering one side.  I get people on the left mad at me when I, say, give a post with glowing respect for Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins.  My respect for second term George W. Bush isn’t shared by Democrats.
            Also, you are dishonest in how you quote me.  I did not mean reason by itself leads to disarray.  Rather, reason as a tool cannot give you principles, core values, or the things that ground a culture or society.  Reason can be used to justify multiple different perspectives.   It’s a tool.  You seem to think otherwise, but you cannot provide one iota of proof.  You make a lot of noise, call names, make grandiose assertions, but you have no argument.  You are unable to use reason to prove your point.   Deep down I think you know it, and that’s why you become so hostile, and are willing to lie.

          • I will leave it up to the reader familiar with you to recall the number of times you gloated about a victory by Democrats–not to mention your dancing in the blood of victims in Iraq and Spain because the carnage made your political enemies look bad or helped your heroes of the socialist left take control with a little help from al Qaeda in the Madrid bombings (as you put it: “good news from Spain”).

            Also, you are dishonest in how you quote me.  I did not mean reason by itself leads to disarray.  Rather, reason as a tool cannot give you principles, core values, or the things that ground a culture or society.

            Bookmark
            New material!  Thanks for yet another cite.  You not only write 90% of the Ott Scerb parodies, but you give me arguments, day in and day out, that your post-modernist nihilistic quantum mush-headed ways of addressing reality are childishly inane and counter-factual.  We hardly have to lift a finger with you digging yourself into a hole on these things.
            But, I’ll be charitable: You don’t understand what reason is. Thus you miss its ubiquitous role in human activity. It would be better for you to change the subject, as each “clarification” only makes you look worse.

            Reason can be used to justify multiple different perspectives.   It’s a tool.  You seem to think otherwise, but you cannot provide one iota of proof.

            WTF is it with you and “proof” on this thread?  WTF is it with you declaring that I think things I never expressed?  According to you: I want to create worlds, tell everyone else what to do, deny that reason is a tool, get everything out of a book.  Focus on the words here and ignore those voices in your head.  Those aren’t me.  Speak with your doctor about them.
            “Perspectives”?  OK, here’s the thing: I can use reason to demonstrate a number of contradictory conclusions if I (1) start with different assumptions, false data; (2) employ logical fallacies the reader overlooks; (3) ignore pertinent details.
            When I help my daughter work a Calculus problem, we can come to different results. At that point, the challenge is to see who discovers which one (or both) had the error.
            But your wishy-washy term “perspectives” aside, two conclusions which contradict in reality cannot both be derived via rational thought without one or both containing one of the errors I enumerated above.
            This isn’t a world in which honest, logical people all working with good information can willy-nilly come to contradictory conclusions because reason is just so gauche and nerdy.

            You are unable to use reason to prove your point.

            You mean like citing your own words?  Yeah, I know the game where you say that evidence is “unconvincing” and that we can’t “prove” something.  It’s the same game that one can play with a two-year-old who learns to incessantly ask “why?” and to be contradictory for the sake of fun.  If you’ve forgotten: I don’t care if you pretend to be unconvinced. I don’t care if you deny that I can “prove” something.  Your head is squirming with nonsense like quantum magic and reason as villain.  There’s just no point in trying to undo all that damage before we can proceed to enlighten you.
            We have your words here, indicting reason.  We have many examples of you indiscriminately indicting the use of organized ideas (coupled with your refusal to acknowledge your own ideological bent).  Those are plenty of evidence that you don’t know how to think or, even worse, don’t know why it is important to think in a way that reflects reality and more efficiently leads from propositions to conclusions with the fewest number of errors.
            You are out of your depth.

          • Reason can be used to justify multiple different perspectives.

            A few thoughts occurred to me a few hours after my above responses.  The phrase “different perspectives”, as you use it, has all sorts of premises packed into it.  Like, how your political “perspective” amounts to declaringhow you think someone in Phoenix or Chicago should be ruled (prohibited activities, substances; required permission for engaging in allowed activities; how much he must pay to keep his freedom, home, and property).  Referring to my ethics as just another “perspective” contains the deception that I am attempting to rule you or the person in Phoenix or Chicago–when, in fact, my “perspective” is to not rule you or these people, to not presume that I knew better than they how to run their affairs.
            My assertion is not that you, or some Republican, can’t employ reason to build your “perspective”, i.e., to create your blue print on how the government should rule others.  It’s that such plans, as well-meaning as you might be, are subject to the fallibilities of the planner.  So, whatever reason you employ starts from the assumption that you should rule others, that you can make decisions better than the individuals themselves.
            I don’t know what’s best for you or for the other Joe Schmoes.  I reject as an imperative that you must be ruled by others and I do not presume to be smart enough to make your decisions for you better than you could.

      • http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/364573/will-nuking-filibuster-melancholy-day-american-life-nro-staff

        As often before, you are simply wrong in your absolutist take on things.

        • “absolutist”
          Go fluck yourself.

          • The term “absolutist”, like “extremist”, is a useless floating abstraction.  It has no defined anchor to reality, but implies a negative quality of going too far.  How far one is permitted to go, and in relation to what, and by whose judgment?  Those are all details not mentioned, usually glossed over.  Just being “absolutist” or “extremist” is baaaaaad!
            Am I an extremist?  On matters like murder, rape, genocide…things for which I leave no margin for tolerance, yes, I am an extremist, an absolutist.  I’m extremely against murder, rape, genocide (and if I felt better I’d easily come up with a long list of examples).  I’m absolutely against such things.  I make no exceptions.
            And I make no gawdamed apologies for being such an absolutist extremist on those things.
            For your sake, I hope you are just the same, even as you ignorantly decry “absolutism”.
            Here is a response that Bill Beck once gave on the subject, and later cited frequently.
            Go read that and stop being such a ridiculous fool.
             

      • In a fantasy world where people use reason and are all peaceable.  There is no evidence to suspect that possible, and mountains of evidence to the contrary.  You also clearly don’t understand the concepts of checks and balance, coming from Montesquieu.  You see, in the US you have, oh, why bother.  If I thought you were willing to learn this stuff, I could go through the different forms of democratic systems, their strengths and weaknesses, etc.  Suffice it to say that the US has more gridlock because it’s structured to force compromise.  The filibuster was not part of that, and hardly used before the 1970s (my website cited above has the stats, a graph of when used, and some history).  Lately, the last few years, it’s been used so much that one can only call it abuse.   By the way, wherever you don’t have effective government, you have organized crime running the show and massive corruption.  Corruption is lowest in the industrialized West.  Your problem isn’t political, it’s psychological.  You’ve latched on to a faith that allows you to think you see better reality than all the masses out there, and it gives you a sense of superiority.  There is nothing in reality to support your view.   In fact, places that are most peaceable are governed by culture and tradition rather than reason.  Reason usually leads to dissarray because it is only a tool.  It will never give you Truth, or core principles; where it leads is completely dependent on your starting assumptions and beliefs.

        • Truth….but, we can’t know what truth is, or did you forget you kept telling us that about 3 weeks ago.  That we can never know, that we can’t PROVE it, and that if we have principles (which would be based on things we think are…what was the word?  ah, yes, truths….) they’re just some sort of emotionally driven thing we have going because we’re weak.

          Yeah, right, that was you that said that.
          You do say whatever pops into your pointy little head for the current discussion don’t you, no principles, and certainly, no truths.

          • He makes this up as he goes along.  A direct indictment of the use of reason?  Astounding!

          • You may think you have certainty and truth, but unless you can prove it to me to my satisfaction, I have no reason to believe you to be right.  And on most issues, you simply have core starting assumptions which themselves are unfalsifiable.  I spend a lot of time going through issues in terms of ethics, morality, and core assumptions.  I’m just not foolishly arrogant enough to think my thought process is infallible and I cannot be wrong.  I have little respect for people who believe they somehow know the truth for certain.  They are usually self-delusional.

          • Elliot, you cannot disprove me, you know it.  My argument is sound and based on reason.  Look back to Edmund Burke’s response to the French revolution.  I think you’re trying to bolster your self-esteem by creating a world where you think you are more principled and reasoned than others.  OK, that damages no one, but don’t expect others to follow based on your personal beliefs.

          • Elliot, you cannot disprove me, you know it.

            You can’t prove that I’m not a god who controls your every thought.
            What’s your point?

            I think you’re trying to…[create] a world where you think you are more principled and reasoned than others.

            Where have I ever expressed an interest in creating a world?  The very opposite is the case.  You make no sense.

          • “but unless you can prove it to me to my satisfaction,”

            Ah, the final arbiter of all that is true.   To YOUR satisfaction.

            Kick back for a minute and run with me here Skippy, maybe I can help you out.

            We don’t have to prove jack to you, that’s a problem you have, thinking that we have to prove things to you or that makes them false. True/false Win/lose, that’s a recurring theme with you.  Highlights it’s importance to you, and based on the way you write, it’s IMPORTANT that you win.

            Pretty sad.   Shows up again and again in your responses.  Think about it.  People who only see things as win or lose….they’re not pragmatic, they’re unlikely to compromise, because having to compromise would mean….

            they lost.

            Now go on and rationalize what all of us have seen, and can see.
             

        • Whoa…
          THAT is some serious self-parody material, rat thar.
          I hope Ott is warming up the ol’ Erp skewers…!!!
          (btw, I won’t give him a hit on his blog, so tell me…  Did he just lift his chart from the Moyers link…???)

        • In a fantasy world where people use reason and are all peaceable.

          That is your fantasy, not mine.  It’s your straw man.  Leave me out of it.

          If I thought you were willing to learn this stuff….

          “This stuff”?  You mean like history, political theories, the status quo, current events?  I’m up on it.  I just don’t accept many of the premises which you take as axiomatic.  You’re locked into what people before you decreed as “the way this stuff works” and you’re too stupid, scared, or whatever to challenge conventional wisdom and work these things out for yourself before you repeat them uncritically as gospel.

          …wherever you don’t have effective government, you have organized crime running the show and massive corruption.

          Have you been to an airport? Have you tried to open a business? Have you seen SWAT teams storm into homes shooting dogs, throwing grenades at kids, allowing infirmed people to die, all on the theory that such horrific violence is necessary so that people won’t get high (while the SWAT members go out to a bar afterward)?  Have you seen what the US military has done in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, etc.?  Have you seen the budget projections for entitlements and other non-discretionary spending?  You know how much your kids are in debt to the government of China?
          Yeah, that’s soooo much better than having thugs run things with “massive corruption”.

          …psychological…faith…think you see better realit.y..sense of superiority….

          Mindless and impotent attempts to push buttons.

          …places that are most peaceable are governed by culture and tradition rather than reason.

          You’re so incredibly stupid.  All human activity requires reason, and culture can be a very effective means of transmitting the message that reason should be valued above savagery.  Being peaceable inherently means employing reason, rather than force.
          How the fluck can a professor not know this?

          Reason usually leads to dissarray….

          Bookmark.
          You’re a blithering idiot.
          Because, of course, the savages who cut off clitorises, hang homosexuals, blow up ancient statues of Buddha, burn witches and all the other sorts of madness which causes disarray and mayhem are such rational thinkers.

          • For someone who claims to use reason, your response is steeped in emotion and logical fallacies.  You engage int he usual argumentum ad hominem, personal attacks and name calling.  Yawn.   In what world is that persuasive?  And yes, I’d say that for all the problems we have with government overreach in the US, we’re far better off than places where government is weak or simply run as organized crime.  I’d not want to live in sub-Saharan Africa or most of the rest of the world.  The industrialized West has seen stable effective government make it possible to overcome rule by the corrupt elite and have a more free society.   Your statement about reason and culture is pure, as you would say “floating abstractions.”  You can’t show that reason leads to any principle absent core assumptions which you have to take on faith.  Your argument is incredibly weak, and supported more by vague innuendo than any logical fact.   I think you’re an intelligent guy, but got misled along the way.   You want an answer book and can’t accept that so much of the world is unknown and uncertain that no such answer key exists – and that’s my belief unless someone shows me otherwise.  Name calling and emotion seems to be more a sign of a weak argument than real certainty.

          • That last bit….about the name calling.  Have you been in the same room with your head all day today?

          • And yes, I’d say that for all the problems we have with government overreach in the US, we’re far better off than places where government is weak or simply run as organized crime.

            The point just whizzed right over your head.  You make the appeal to consequences fallacy, except you pretend that, with government, things are not run by organized oligarchs and a system riddled with corruption.
            I’m not an idealist and I don’t make any predictions about unlikely hypothetical scenarios.  All I’m saying is that if government is your answer to keeping away the corrupt thugs, you’re simply not paying attention to what government does today, right now.

            Your statement about reason and culture is pure, as you would say ‘floating abstractions.’

            Don’t use a phrase if you don’t understand it.  Human beings survive by reason.  We live, produce, and create more intellectually stimulating lifestyles than mere subsistence only because we apply reason to solve problems.  That is not a claim that we don’t put emotion into things, that irrational notions or short-circuit rote teaching don’t make culture more interesting, sometimes more challenging, and sometimes, by quirk, more effective at certain matters.
            But no organized human behavior exists without reason.  We’re not imbued with the instinctual programming of hive insects.
            You’re way out of your depth here.  But that’s what you get for indicting reason qua reason.
            Your impertinent reference to faith is like watching a brain-damaged Tourette’s Syndrome sufferer repeat nonsense words.  It’s sad, because you just blurt it out repeatedly to push buttons.
            Go ahead, keep doing it.  It’s funny.

            You want an answer book and can’t accept that so much of the world is unknown and uncertain that no such answer key exists….

            You haven’t a clue about me.  You’re just making up things, probably something you read somewhere, repeating it stupidly, hoping that it will stick.  It has no bearing on me, though.

            Name calling and emotion….

            …are things you do far more frequently than I do, or anyone else you attack with such boilerplate condescension.

          • OK, Elliot, my last reply to this thread and you can have the last word.  If you ever want a real conversation about this, let me know.   Today in class we’re discussing Sigmund Freud.  Later we look at Einstein and Heisenberg (it’s an Honors first year seminar, an intellectual history of western thought).  Freud’s insight that we are driven by unconscious drives that we neither control nor even know about, showed that behavior by pure reason is impossible for humans.  Now don’t go off on an ad hominem attack on Freud.  He got a lot wrong, had a lot of silly ideas, but this one has stood the test of time and study – what drives us is often buried deep with in us, our pre-conscious and unconscious.  It often comes from early experiences or something internal.  So the idea that it’s possible for a human to operate by pure reason is absurd.   (Quantum mechanics and modern physics also destroyed the simple materialist cause and effect clockwork universe of Newton).
            Now, don’t complain about me not knowing about you, when the same is just as true for you not knowing about me.  We each have an image of the other created through disagreements and silly internet flamewars from the past.   That’s why I don’t dislike you or carry a grudge, I don’t know you.  That’s also why your insults don’t bother me – I know you are describing your imagined image of me (indeed, anyone bothered by insults on line shouldn’t comment on blogs).  As a political scientist, I would love to believe as did Marx that government would be unnecessary – humans could operate freely with total liberation.  Marx’s utopia doesn’t differ much from the utopian capitalist view; and each is a model of reality built on simplifications and hidden assumptions.  If you could give me real evidence, a real argument, that your position is more than your belief – that there is reason to take it seriously – I would.  But usually you end up calling names or ridiculing, taking snippets out of context, and are more on the warpath than really trying to prove yourself right.   Shrug.
            I prod you with bit about taking it on faith to get you to see that you don’t have any proof for your belief, that you have chosen to believe core assumptions.  Yet you ridicule, say, the Dalai Lama whose core assumption is that there is a deeper reality outside our perceptual range.   You call such a view a belief in the supernatural, when it’s just a different assumption on nature.  I don’t mind if you believe or don’t believe that, but you RIDICULE beliefs different than yours.   So I ridicule yours and turn tables to show you that you have no superior standing for your claims.  I’m sorry if that bothers you, but I’m trying to get under your armor where you don’t want to admit the possibility that you’re wrong.  I see an intelligent and apparently genuinely principled man caught up what to me looks like a delusion.   But clearly, you’re not going to try to defend your views, and have already made your mind up.

            So as I said, last post from me on this thread, and probably for awhile.   Contact me or comment on my blog (there are appropriate entries for a discussion about this) if you want to actually use reason rather than name calling and emotion to work through these issues.  Your choice.

          • “So as I said, last post from me on this thread, and probably for awhile.”

            Are we bigots again, and you’re done with us?

            tis a consummation devoutly to be wished.

          • If you ever want a real conversation about this, let me know.

            Yeah, you held out that football for me over a decade ago, Lucy.
            I know you are too afraid to conduct a discussion in a straightforward manner, and you can’t tempt me into believing that, gosh, after all this time of watching you lie about us, all the childish games, the faked quotes, the gushing over “good news from Spain”, that you’re going to have an epiphany.  “Really, this time is different!”
            Again, you not only don’t understand how to think, but you don’t even understand why that is so crucial for human beings.  It’s all about seeing if you can get people angry on the internet.  Troll.

          • …behavior by pure reason is impossible for humans. … So the idea that it’s possible for a human to operate by pure reason is absurd.

            What is this “pure reason” to which you keep referring? To whom do you think you need to address this?
            If I said, “Humans must have water to live,” you’d counter with the strawman that I was asserting that water was the only thing we needed, or go off on a tangent about Jacque Cousteau and mermaids, and then clumsily seague into something you read in a pop book on pseudo-science mysticism.
            But keep making up straw man arguments. I suppose that keeps you busy and off the streets, out of the bars.

            Quantum mechanics….

            Protip: You can safely ignore any sentence that includes the phrase ‘According to quantum mechanics.’ You can also just ignore any science assertion where ‘quantum mechanics’ is the most complicated phrase in it.

            As a political scientist, I would love to believe as did Marx….

            Ha! I think we can leave that right there and it would be more accurate and honest than anything else you’re putting up. But, OK OK, I’ll continue your quote:

            …that government would be unnecessary – humans could operate freely with total liberation. Marx’s utopia doesn’t differ much from the utopian capitalist view….

            (1) Who is expressing any utopian ideas except you and your strawmen? I recognize that human predators will always exist and that any kumbaya ideals are just fantasies, elements of thought experiments at best.
            (2) Marxist ideas are radically different than the ideas of free market thinkers (e.g., the Austrian School), because Marx and his uncritical true believers did not understand human nature at all and completely overlooked basic facts of reality. As a result, the practical implementation of Marx’s blueprint resulted in mass murder, starvation, war, and virtual slavery on a horrific scale.
            (3) Pointing out that government does evil things is not, in any way, an assertion that removing government is a panacea for all problems which occur under government. The historical examples we have are not of governments withering away, either, are they? So, it is excessively dishonest for you to cite cases of collapsed governments, overthrown governments, natural catastrophes, etc. as a means to predict what following your free market utopian straw man would mean.
            (4) Pointing out that what government does is unethical is not an assertion that simply destroying government would eliminate unethical behavior.

            …and each is a model of reality built on simplifications and hidden assumptions.

            Particularly the second (capitalist utopia) which is a product of your imagination, you being hostile to economic freedom and intent on discrediting ideas of the free market. At least find someone who is an actual advocate of capitalism who is actually proposing such a utopia. Address that person’s statements and don’t pretend that anyone here is making them.

            If you could give me real evidence….

            I don’t care. You don’t deserve anything but ridicule because (1) you lie and malign good people and (2) you incessantly pretend that all evidence and arguments are “not convincing”, so it is pointless to seek your approval.

            I prod you with bit about taking it on faith….

            …because you noticed a few years ago I identified myself as an atheist. Yes, how droll.
            The fact that you don’t understand what “faith” means in your arguments means your use of the word leads to nothing but ridicule of your incompetence, your failure at thinking.

            Yet you ridicule, say, [Lhamo Dondrub] whose core assumption is that there is a deeper reality outside our perceptual range.

            No. That we cannot perceive the totality of the universe is basic science and the fact that some guy who pretends to be the 14th reincarnation of some holy spirit repeats it as though it were something deep, and that you see his restatement of the obvious, along with his misrepresentations and contortions to fit his mystical agenda, brings copious mirth to this blog. Every time you say “quantum” we all get a good laugh at your expense. (see XKCD example above)
            Physicists who eschew religion, mysticism, and other forms of “magic” have been well aware of mysteries, of things that the most advanced investigations cannot (and, in many cases, will never) reveal. Instead of babbling about “quantum” oneness or other gibberish, they attach labels like “dark matter”, “dark energy”, “open questions”, etc. to that which they don’t know. They don’t see a mystery and declare, “God did it!” or “It’s magic!” No, they keep investigating. They come up with ideas that don’t require magic or gods.
            Laplace: “…je n’ai pas eu besoin de cette hypothèse.”
            Galileo: “Eppur si muove.”

            You call such a view a belief in the supernatural….

            No, I don’t. The inability to perceive all of reality is a very basic fact. That you attempt to draw some deep meaning from it only shows you’re not very astute. You’re quite gullible to pop ideas from culture icons, like Lhamo Dondrub.

            I don’t mind if you believe or don’t believe that, but you RIDICULE beliefs different than yours.

            I ridicule that which is ridiculous, when presented arrogantly, as you do, as Lhamo Dondrub does.
            I am quite tolerant of the beliefs of most others, even when I think they are absurd or childish, because they’re not shoving them in my face or expecting me to abandon science and reason for their rot. Basically, I hold my tongue a lot, especially around people who speak of religion, spirits, and such.

            So I ridicule yours and turn tables to show you that you have no superior standing for your claims. I’m sorry if that bothers you, but I’m trying to get under your armor where you don’t want to admit the possibility that you’re wrong.

            Chuckle. No, Scott, you attempt to ridicule, but the fact that you lack the ability to think coherently just makes you look even more foolish.
            But I do like the imagery of you whacking away with your little wooden sword at a man in plate armor. That one put a smile on my face.

          • “So the idea that it’s possible for a human to operate by pure reason is absurd.   (Quantum mechanics and modern physics also destroyed the simple materialist cause and effect clockwork universe of Newton).”
            And yet, in this universe, we can create clocks…
            Really Scotty, do you have half of an ounce of a clue as to what the f**k you are on about?

          • What I gett from my dieism, and Elliot gets from reason, Scott gets from his witchdoctor level of understanding of Quantum mechanics.  BIG juju!

            Explains to him that which he cannot explain while remaining unexplainable.

            We are expected to acknowledge this makes him special and we are to gear our efforts to proving things to him with proofier proof.


             

          • Erp is the first ASTRAL-physicist.
            Far-out, man…

          • And yet, in this universe, we can create clocks…

            Those are the clocks built by the irrational in insane asylums. Parts are tossed through portals in the wards and shiny new clocks come out the other side.  It’s a variation of the Infinite Improbability Drive, with strings and branes, plus a few sprinkles of hope and change.   I read all about it in Madonna Ciccone’s book on Kabballah. And, don’t you dare make fun of her or the pop exploitation of that religious branch.
             

          • We are expected to acknowledge this makes him special and we are to gear our efforts to proving things to him with proofier proof.

            I think too many people told young Scott he was special and smart, praising him for jabbering away breathlessly, but not actually listening to him or reading what he wrote in any critical manner.  So long as he stayed in that bubble, he was a golden boy.  Now, when he’s in the harsh climes of the open Internet, it’s always everyone else who engages in personal attacks, everyone else who offers no evidence, no proof, no arguments.
            Because, it isn’t possible that all of those people who told him what a special little snowflake he was, while he was in the bubble, were just telling him what they thought he needed to hear to boost his confidence.

          • “I think too many people told young Scott he was special and smart, praising him for jabbering away breathlessly, but not actually listening to him or reading what he wrote in any critical manner.  So long as he stayed in that bubble, he was a golden boy. ”
            Is it possible that Scotty was born 30 years too early? He seems to fit right in with the stereotypical definition of a millenial “me me me” character. No wonder he keeps jibbering on about the youth of today, he thinks he’s finally found his spiritual home after 40 years in the wilderness.

          • Is it possible that Scotty was born 30 years too early? He seems to fit right in with the stereotypical definition of a millenial “me me me” character.

            While I wouldn’t summarize the deficiencies of the latest generation with “me me me” (simply because so many class warriors use such phrases to denounce self-interest as “greedy” that for the uninitiated, it could be taken the wrong way), I understand the disdain for the insipid and vacuous nature of the bulk of the group.
            From where do you think these millenials learn such things?  From people like Scott.  Though, he is rather obscure with almost no influence, he is symptomatic of the rot which created the attitudes.
            He was probably born a decade too late.  Not a true baby boomer.  If he had attended college in the 60s, he probably wouldn’t even bother with the pretense of masking his Marxist tendencies and he’d have a better chance of working at a named university, doing some real damage corrupting the youts.
            Part of the baby-boomer idiocy is the ubiquitous “we learn more from the kids than we teach them” and the attempts to be buddies and pals, instead of authority figures.  Any good parent who has made the mistake of doing the latter from time to time and seen the result learns very quickly to stop such nonsense.

        • You also clearly don’t understand the concepts of checks and balance,
          >>> Neither do you, otherwise you wouldn’t be cheerleading the end of the filibuster.

          • The filibuster has NOTHING to do with checks and balances.

          • Erp, you’re an idiot.

            Checks and balances were enormously eroded by this move, as anybody with a working understanding of basic American civics knows, including many of your fellow Collectivists.

            EVERY Senator is reduced by this power-grab by Baracula.  Every.  One.  Which, of course, was the intent, and why you love it.

            You are simply a happy, goose-stepping lil’ totalitarian, just beneath a facade you insist on painting on…but which everyone here has seen to be lipstick on a pig.

    • The abuse of the filibuster created an untenable gridlock creator (and both parties share blame) making it seem like you needed 60 votes to pass anything mildly controversial.  That is contrary to the historical traditions of the Senate and the filibuster.

      “Filibuster abuse”…!?!?!  What a flucking moron.

      Our Congress was DESIGNED to make it hard to do things, idiot.  ANYTHING.  Much less “mildly [or radically] controversial”.

      This was ESPECIALLY true of the SENATE, which was BY DESIGN, a sea-anchor in terms of the legislative function.  “The world’s greatest DELIBERATIVE body”, you illiterate wretch.

      And now, when your Collective puts party ideology above all else, judicial appointments by your broken child are simply to be supported at all costs, which is a break from the ‘old days’ when a Deemocrat would actually consider the qualifications of an appointee.

      • No Rags, you’re wrong.  I can tell you know you’re wrong when you pull out playground name calling in your response.  You’re trying to create emotion to deflect from the fact facts and reason don’t support you.   The rest of your post was silly babble, not even addressing the issue.  Lame, very lame.

        • About what am I “wrong”, moron?

          Both history and reason DO support me.  Duh.

          How does it feel to be SOOOOOoooooo on the wrong side of history…and the “young people”…???

          Heh!!

          • No, you’re way of thinking is the ashheap of history, Rags.  You’re against gay marriage, right?  LOL!  The culture wars are over.  The religious right has lost.  When you deal with the youth, you see they have 21st century minds, not caught up in the kind of ideological silliness you’re into.  You have no chance, you’ve already been defeated.

          • Umm…Erp…???
            You OK out there in Moosesqueeze?
            Our topic was the Senate filibuster, remember?

            The topic where you lifted some ideas from the likes of Bill Moyers, Ezra Klein, and Sarah Binder.  Remember now?
            You were punked out again by your moonbattery sources, Erp.  You came here to republish a bunch of bullshit you’ve been fed, and got your clock cleaned by people who…
            1. understand basic American civics
            2. understand American history
            3. are not delusional members of your Collective
            4. are not slavish apologists for your poor, broken child idol

            This last few weeks has apparently been too much for you to cope with, what with the crashing and burning of all your delusional hopes and dreams about Barracula and his dreaminess.
            From Iran to ObamaDoggle, simply one long trial of tears, huh?

            Plus, this lil’ power-grab strips you of any pretext to being “pragmatic”, or anything at all but a pom-pom girl for your Collective, regardless of how naked their wrong-doing.  Remember Miguel Estrada, one of the MOST qualified nominees for a Federal bench in the history of the Republic?  Remember WHY he is not serving in the DC appeals court?  It all had to do with RACE, Erp.  And it exposed your Collective as the rank racists you are.

            No wonder you are having a break-down.  Being exposed like this HAS to suck.

          • The pretty strawmen!  Is the gay marriage one standing next to the 17th amendment one?
             

          • “Millennials may be young, but they’re not stupid. As bad as Obama’s time in office has been for older Americans, nobody has taken it on the chin quite as bad as kids under 30, who are more likely to be unemployed, broke, and facing decades of sub-par wages if and when they do finally get a job.”
            http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/11/20/why-youth-is-revolting-against-obama-hint-it-s-not-just-obamacare.html

            By a clear majority, “young people” disapprove of Obama now.  They ALSO join other Americans in feeling government is too powerful.
            You should read outsider your moonbattery bubble more, Erp.

          • The culture wars are over.

            You decree it!  It must be so!
            No battling over culture going on.  Not anymore.

            You have no chance, you’ve already been defeated.

            OK, so you won everything.  Why don’t you change careers and take up a hobby which has nothing to do with arguing about battles which are in the past?
            Oh, but you’re still teaching this stuff and still coming here to troll.  Methinks thou doth contradict thyself too much.

        • You’ve had nothing to say about Barackycare flameout, lately sport.  I wonder why.

          Feckless AND gutless….

    • The obvious fact is that there was not enough gridlock when Obamacare passed the Senate.

    • The Washington Post has answered your prayer – a decent timeline, and notes about when cloture was used (implying of course a filibuster in progress).
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-evolution-of-the-senate-filibuster/2013/11/21/d4b46486-52f4-11e3-a7f0-b790929232e1_story.html

      Now, oddly the WaPo chooses, it seems, not to mention a rules change for the Senate in the 70′s (1975) so let’s review what that was.  That allowed a cloture vote…ending a filibuster…to be achieved with 3/5 rather than 2/3 of the Senate.  In short, it was EASIER to end a filibuster as a result of the rule change in 1975 for those of us who can do math and see that 2/3′s is 66 senators (plus little bits and pieces of one) versus 3/5s which is an even 60.
      Unless the number of Senators has changed, and….it hasn’t….that means it is easier to end the filibuster than it has been since it was brought up as a means of stopping legislation by a minority party.

      Note the Obama Senate years – a change in rules in 2011 which reduced the ability to USE the filibuster, and dropped the requirement for 400 nominees to federal agencies.
      Now another change in rules again, same Obama Senate.

      In 2004 after the election the Democrats trotted out the filibuster in force. By 2007 The Republicans seem to have learned to correctly load and fire the damn thing so Harry (and we can bet Obamugabe was heavily involved) decided it’s time to take the weapon away, even though it is less used today than it was a mere 3 years ago, and over a court that has one of the lightest case load volumes in the country.

      All so Obama’s banana republic regulatory agenda can be cleared and approved.

      Yeah, if there’s any spite at all in the GOP, there WILL be payback.

       

    • I don’t believe most of them are trying to limit the power they wield by filibustering more power grabs.
      I believe they’re mainly filibustering to keep the current majority party from acquiring more power.


      They never relinquish the power once they’ve acquired it, no matter who can muster absolute control of the legislative and executive branches.
       

  • When they become the minority the Republicans will be to blame for the minority being silienced

    We have a large portion of the populous that either wants to be spoon fed what to think on issues or is unable to do anything else and a Biased media willing to exploit it. 

    • And I will be calling on the Republican Majority leader to eliminate the filibuster completely.  Or go back to how it was in the past when doing a filibuster meant continuing debate on and on.  But the way it was altered to render such easy abuse is a sure path to gridlock.  And I’ll cheer a Republican Senate majority leader who eliminates it completely, even if most liberals and Democrats are up in arms.  I promise that.

      • “Angels above us are silent notes taking…”
        I look forward to Erp being punked over that.

    • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjdbjrXiobQ#t=181
      <object width=”420″ height=”315″><param name=”movie” value=”//www.youtube.com/v/SjdbjrXiobQ?hl=en_US&amp;version=3″></param><param name=”allowFullScreen” value=”true”></param><param name=”allowscriptaccess” value=”always”></param><embed src=”//www.youtube.com/v/SjdbjrXiobQ?hl=en_US&amp;version=3″ type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” width=”420″ height=”315″ allowscriptaccess=”always” allowfullscreen=”true”></embed></object>

  • The only reason to do this is to make the most of the time they have left.

    They are going to ramrod Amnesty on us.  If they are successful.  the 51 votes will always be there’s not long after the 2014 term ad infinitum. 

  • ” Reid – not smart enough see beyond today and the fact that he has just set it up for Democrats of tomorrow to pay for this in ways they never imagined. ”
    - – - – -
    Several months ago, on a different blog, I brought this up (ie, “Don’t they think ahead and realize the precedent they’re setting?  What happens when the GOP does this same thing and announces {in essence} ‘Well, this time *WE* won, so this time *YOU* can siddown and shuddup — just like we had to do while Obama was in office.”
    One of the other guests on the site gently explained to me that “The Democrats truly believe they’ve got it fixed  — they’ve got the power now, and they fully intend to be The Ruling Party forevermore, by hook or by crook — or by any other means.”
    (Considering the heroic efforts of the MFMSM, and of so many public and private-sector unions, and then adding in the relentless liberal indoctrination our best-and-brightest students receive at our citadels of higher education . . . maybe “Progressives-Now-and-Progressives-Forever”  *IS*  the most plausible vision of the future.)

  • When 50-100 million insurance cancellations get ready to hit, it’s going to be a bloodbath for the Dems. If they don’t want to be crippled for a generation the ones who are left will happily vote w/ the GOP for repeal…..and I’ll bet that there’d be enough to override Baracky’s veto also.  The party will happily break him to save themselves, you think they’re gonna take a generation in the wilderness for Barack? Especially with the real possibility of GOP full control (and no filibuster needed anymore thanks to alleged creepy pedarest Sen. Reid)

    WITH JOY IN MY HEART!

  • So now we know. Obamacare website is not getting fixed in time. No young people are signing up. And they plan to push on with dropping employer plans.
    Why else would you do this, unless you assumed you were going to get shellacked?

    • They are doing what they can to assure they continue their legacy of Collectivist power via the courts.

      Happily, all that can be overturned in a reform of the Federal judiciary, and the power to do that rests completely with the Congress.  The Congress could pass term limits for Federal judges, for instance, and it should.  To include the Supremes.  Congress could also make judges subject to recall on grounds far short of impeachment.  For being nutz, would be one criteria I would employ…

  • http://c-spanvideo.org/program/DemocraticRadioAddress131

    You REALLY need to hear Hateful Harry Reid on the whole issue of the sacred filibuster.
    I mean, you REALLLLY neeeeeeeddd to hear this.

  • http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/11/democrats-nuked-the-ratchet/

    Prof. Jacobson sees the glass pretty stinking full.  Another way to put his point…
    the safeties are off now.  For good or ill.

    • As John Fund reports

      As Phil Kerpen, author of the 2011 book Denying Democracy, told me: “The filibuster change will make it far more likely that major legislative accomplishments can be swept away in the next swing of the political pendulum. Public policy will be less stable and long-term business planning will be confounded.”
      In short, it will make government more unstable. Temporary majorities could pass sweeping legislation on immigration policy, tax law, and regulatory procedures with no bipartisan input — as was done in 2010 with the passage of the now unraveling Obamacare law.

      • I’ve never been impressed with Fund.  Compared to almost all other governments in the industrialized West ours is the least likely to have major changes go back and forth.  The filibuster is irrelevant to that fact.  I just wish more people actually understood comparative politics and how our system is in relation to others.

  • He’s Back!!!  It was foretold – Erb couldn’t keep away.  Once again, the feckless Prof from the wilds of Maine enters the lair of the QandO - and hilarity ensues.  Why?  Hypocrisy,  that’s why.  A man who was quiet as a church mouse during the days of GOP dominance in the Senate, with the Democrats using cloture as a tool against Bush’s political and judicial nominations, now comes out and says he was for the “nuclear option” all along.  He, along with such notables as Obama, Biden, Reid, the NY Times, and countless other so-called liberal stalwarts curse the GOP for even suggesting the “option” back in 2005 now claim they are all for it today.  he even points out a Blog entry at his own site, where I challenged him for his BS position and, no surprise, claimed he was against it long before he was against it - the filibuster, I mean.  So now, as I said again, he’s back.  He just can’t stand not getting bitch-slapped around.   I guess he must be missing his ex.

  • http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/11/obama-delays-o-cares-2014-enrollment-period-by-one-month/

    No crass, cynical politics driving THAT, surely!
    This gets better EVERY DAY…!!!
    Heh!
     

    • Well, count me as very very very very very, extremely, shocked!  Shocked!

      I have my surprise face here to show how shocked I am that the leader of San Obamadorivia is once again ‘fixing’ things.
      (O.o)


      Coming on the heels of Harry’s action, who could have guessed!

       

  • Oh, and guys…this was OBAMA doing this.  Reid was just the instrument.

    And, if anybody ever doubted what a Collectivist ideologue Barracula is, read this…
    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/364578/obamas-gettysburg-address-adam-keiper

  • And yet, this page was totally fine if the GOP had done the same thing as Reid. From the way I read it, the arguments are the same, yet somehow it’s okay if the GOP had followed thru in 2005, but it’s not okay for the Dems to do the same today. 

    From the archives, 2005:

    http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=1281

    I guess hypocrisy does have limits, no?

  • Serenity Valley – Erb is that you?????

  • I will make a bold prediction – call it a bet.  If the GOP takes the Senate in the 2014 midterm elections, one of the last things Reid does as Majority leader is to change the rules for Cloture back to the original 60-40 rule that it was before today.  Why?  So the democrats, in the minority, can play their duplicitous game once again and not get slammed by the GOP.  Any bets?  Erb?

  • Thought Experiment. Let’s say the GOP take the Senate and then passes bills banning abortion. Obama then vetos these bills over and over. Let’s say this is done 1,000 times in a year.
    Could we then demand the stripping of Obama’s veto power simply because “he vetoed more laws than all other presidents combined?”
    No. Thus, the claim that the GOP “abused” the fillibuster is silly.

    • Go with the assumption that any filibuster is a result of the two sides not cooperating to find an answer to an issue.

      Can someone find the “we’ll cooperate” indications in statements like:
      “Elections have consequences”, “I Won”, “I will not negotiate”, “We don’t negotiate with terrorists”, “Republicans don’t care about the middle class”, “Republicans are willing to destroy everything for ideology”,
      something to the effect of ‘The republicans main goal is to deny 30 million people health care’,
      accusing Republican disagreement of (x) policy with disagreeing with the elimination of slavery,
      that Republicans are going to “put y’all back in chains”,
      “same group we faced in the south with those white crackers and the dogs and the police”, “Here we are seven months into Obama’s second term and…(Republicans obstruct his agenda)…and I hope, I hope, and I say this seriously, that it’s based on substance and not the fact that he’s African American”, “…they cling to their guns or their religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them…”, “If you get sick, America, the Republican health care plan is this: Die quickly.”, “What is happening is sabotage. Terrorists couldn’t do a better job than the Republicans are doing”

      Maybe if this hadn’t been one of the most divisive, partisan, banana Republic administrations in history the filibuster wouldn’t be used so often.
      Maybe if he didn’t legislate through regulation, maybe if he didn’t invent law, maybe if he enforced the laws, and didn’t ignore the laws he doesn’t like, maybe if his IRS wasn’t used as an instrument of thugisim, maybe if his justice department was really interested in justice, maybe if he wasn’t so keen on strangling America’s ability to provide it’s own power, and blatantly invest in money pit methods of paying off his contributors….

      Maybe it wouldn’t be so ‘abused’.

      Yeah, yeah, refer to above, it’s pretty obvious in the quotes, to disagree with the President and his policies is to be a slave holding racist.

    • Uh, the filibuster is not in the Constituion.  The President’s veto power is.  That’s a real difference.

  • Its naive to think Reid and Obama aren’t aware of the possibility (likelihood) of the Senate changing hands in 2014.  This was done to the Advantage of the Democrat’s and Obama’s agenda.

    Including, not limited to:
    1) A push for Amnesty which by any other name is still Amnesty which will likely only pass if its executed quickly.
    2) Padding the Federal judges with a surge of liberal judges a la Clinton.  It served the Democrats well.  It tilts the type of rulings the SC see to ones that only advance the liberal agenda.   Even if most fail, it means the only direction judicial rulings move it to favor of the Left.
    3) Padding the Supreme Court itself

  • And now thanks to the Democrats, Iran also has the nuclear option….

    • And you can lay money…

      Obama will read about Iran’s test of an A-bomb in the New York Times.  And it will be something that…
      1. is a complete surprise, and
      2. makes him angry, AND
      3. Erp will tell us was DEFT.

      • IF you want anybody to read it, you’ll have to give us the Reader’s Digest version here.

        Blog-whoring will not work.

        Bolton called it “abject surrender”.  I agree.  Kerry is the only person alive who could have done such a flawless job of selling out American interests.

      • Kerry said, “There is no daylight between us [Israel and the U.S.] with respect to what we want to achieve [respecting Iran], at this point.”
        —ABC
        No, no “daylight”. Profound, existential darkness, yes. And lots of it.
        Obama made it worse. Far, far worse.

      • Yep, centrifuges are still spinning. Iran still on track for nukes. It’s a big win for Iran, big loss for US and Israel.

      • Keep cheering you clueless fool.

        We can’t hold you responsible for what will come from this, but we will be reminding you you were murderously
        wrong.

        As for the blog post, no doubt you’re merely trying to inflame people.  You’re the local version of a turd in the punchbowl.

        Now tell everyone I’m lying and that we’re racists and bigots.

        • We can’t hold you responsible for what will come from this

          >>> More and more I wonder exactly why not.

          • While he clearly has the necessary mind set to work well with the current Administration, he doesn’t actually work for them (except when the lights are out and he travels to fantasy island).

            He denies two critical facts – One, the Iranian Mullahs think they can summon God for the final conflict by lighting a fuse, and the Israelis are likely to do their damnedest to make sure “Never Again” means what it means.

            There’s pretty much only two ways this game can play out as is, and I support the later rather than the former.

  • http://freebeacon.com/obamacare-causing-college-profs-to-have-hours-and-insurance-cut/


    Since about 95% of the people screwed by ObamaDoggle in this story were Obama voters…
    the irony…it is succulent!
    How ’bout you, Erp?  Seeing more of the new wife these days?  Or can you see her in that cold, dark garret…???

    And THAT is the reason for the power-play Barracula ordered Reid to pull…appoint radical Collectivists who would…by ALL means…uphold the regulatory state, including ObamaDoggle.

    (Won’t work, though.  Millions of us are saying NO!)

  • Obama: ‘I’m not a particularly ideological person’
    Which is kinda true.

    Barracula is an opportunistic Collectivist.  He is not a pure fascist, communist, or any other “-ist”, except a holistic Collectivist.  He will cheerfully bastardize any Collectivist doctrine to fit his aims, and probably hold purists in contempt.

  • http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/25/top-4-u-s-hospital-laying-off-staff-due-to-obamacare/
    Of course they are.
    This is inevitable, and was predicted.  It WILL get worse.  Much, much worse.

    And all the courts packed with Collectivist judges won’t be able to dint the problem, because it exists in the real world.  Collectivists don’t do well in the real world, since they base what they believe in illusion.
     

michael kors outlet michael kors handbags outlet michael kors factory outlet