Washington Post: Reid, Democrats trigger ‘nuclear’ option; eliminate most filibusters on nominee

jimmyx


what a lofty political goal, elect someone so incapable of governing, that it would create hysteria in democrats.

It has worked well for the Democrats using Obama has it?

reply to post by FyreByrd

Try a dictionary out too.
The MSM was propagating the same... if you had bothered to look.
So, as defined by your own post, you would have a problem with the MSM.

Krazysh0t
This is absurd, why are they focusing on this non-issue? They should be focusing on term limits in Congress, lobbying reform, and rezoning Congressional districts so that they aren't blatantly designed to always have a certain party win. Oh wait, I'm sorry I've been living in my fantasy land in my head where politicians are actually responsible and do the right things instead of worrying about how to abuse their power. I think I may retreat back into my head, its so much more pleasant there.

Rezoning congressional districts won't work - to remain in power, the elected representative will have to favor one group (taxpayers) over another (benefits claimants). Eventually an imbalance would appear, and one group will have a majority over another.

stormcell

Krazysh0t
This is absurd, why are they focusing on this non-issue? They should be focusing on term limits in Congress, lobbying reform, and rezoning Congressional districts so that they aren't blatantly designed to always have a certain party win. Oh wait, I'm sorry I've been living in my fantasy land in my head where politicians are actually responsible and do the right things instead of worrying about how to abuse their power. I think I may retreat back into my head, its so much more pleasant there.

Rezoning congressional districts won't work - to remain in power, the elected representative will have to favor one group (taxpayers) over another (benefits claimants). Eventually an imbalance would appear, and one group will have a majority over another.

@both of you, You don't rezone districts, you redistrict them. Term limits isn't the issue, if you have a proper representative doing their job then it's ridiculous to limit their ability to continue serving their constituency. Establishing term limits won't correct the underlying issues of government, you will just have different people continuously making the same mistakes while that 1 in a million who does their job gets canned because they hit their limit and then are replaced with some ass.

Term limits is nothing more than the will of the majority (the same majority who elects these morons) deciding what is best. Thankfully to do so requires far more work than this fractured nation can muster.

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer


Typical progessive tactics -- disregard the constitution except when you think it can be used to back up your argument. When all else fails, attempt discredit the opponent; some ignorant folks are bound to fall for it.

You won't find anything in my post that implies a direct quote from the constitution. My statements were interpretations of the document. It may come as a surprise to you, but if one actually studies the thing (a little knowledge of history and human nature helps too) one begins to see the reasoning and intentions behind every line.

OpenMindedRealist
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer

 

Typical progessive tactics -- disregard the constitution except when you think it can be used to back up your argument. When all else fails, attempt discredit the opponent; some ignorant folks are bound to fall for it.

Wow. First you attempt to discredit me, by calling me a "progressive", and then you turn around and claim that I'm trying to discredit you. Don't get dizzy doing 180's.

Perhaps I am trying to discredit you. But If so, I try to back up my claims with facts and evidence. It's really quite telling that you have not chosen to respond to my evidence or arguments, but rather have chosen to call names.

OpenMindedRealist
You won't find anything in my post that implies a direct quote from the constitution.

Well, naturally you wouldn't have quoted the constitution, since there is nothing in it to back up your claims.

OpenMindedRealist
My statements were interpretations of the document.

Credible interpretations should be backed up by quotations from the text, or perhaps the Federalist Papers, or Anti-Federalist papers. If you find yourself advancing an interpretation of a document that can't be backed up this way, you're not interpreting, you're just pushing your own agenda.

OpenMindedRealist
It may come as a surprise to you, but if one actually studies the thing (a little knowledge of history and human nature helps too) one begins to see the reasoning and intentions behind every line.

Hmmm... based on what you've demonstrated in this thread, you should follow that advice.

I'll freely admit that I think the constitution could use some updates after 200 years of history. What I find ironic is that so many who regard it as something untouchable, and worthy of near-worship, are so totally ignorant concerning what it actually says. It's like they worship the parchment itself, rather than what's writtten on it.