My God, you are an idiot.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

do you think when I said it was the impeAchment I didn't get that I was saying the r's were the original problem?? The fact is the dems escalated under w. We'll see how the dems behave 1/2013 when they are minority again, I think they'll behave poorly too.

Hard to square what you say here with what you said before:

as to the tactics in the Senate he seems to have forgotten what the Dems did there in the Bush admin. They started the trend, the Rs may have increased it, but the start was most clearly the Dems.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Hard to square what you say here with what you said before:

impeachments don't start in the Senate. Would you please summarize what you do know about our government?

Conf to RT: can we organize a chat of the admins and mods but w/o ty?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

impeachments don't start in the Senate. Would you please summarize what you do know about our government?

I think you are saying that the "trend" you had in mind was specifically in the Senate. It doesn't make any sense to think about things that narrowly.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I think you are saying that the "trend" you had in mind was specifically in the Senate. It doesn't make any sense to think about things that narrowly.

I said the r's started it with the impeachment. You posted something that said the r's were bad in the senate. I said the dems behaved badly first in the senate. What the fuck are you talking about?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I said the r's started it with the impeachment. You posted something that said the r's were bad in the senate. I said the dems behaved badly first in the senate. What the fuck are you talking about?

Before that you said the Dems started it. If you're going to stake out both sides, you can argue with yourself and you don't need me.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Before that you said the Dems started it. If you're going to stake out both sides, you can argue with yourself and you don't need me.

ok. kindergarden for Ty. The r's are bad. I think the Dems have been bad too. Do you agree?

trending: these guys are pathetic

[Ty@50]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I think you are saying that the "trend" you had in mind was specifically in the Senate. It doesn't make any sense to think about things that narrowly.

Look, you should delete these posts. you look stupid, we do. If you agree delete your original posts, my posts and Hank's too. I am sure Hank would agree. these posts harm the board and your reputation.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

ok. kindergarden for Ty. The r's are bad. I think the Dems have been bad too. Do you agree?

trending: these guys are pathetic

As that GOP staffer said, the Dems are pathetic in their own way but the GOP is worse. The GOP has made filibusters routine and they gave us the debt-ceiling showdown. Not saying the Dems are pristine. But the GOP keeps dragging us down.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

As that GOP staffer said, the Dems are pathetic in their own way but the GOP is worse. The GOP has made filibusters routine and they gave us the debt-ceiling showdown. Not saying the Dems are pristine. But the GOP keeps dragging us down.

Depends on how you define "worse." The Dems invented filibustering/obstruction under W. The Rs may have expanded it, but that was my point. We'll see how fair the Dems play if they lose the Senate next year.

Do you think the Senate will go back to it's proper functioning if the Dems lose control?

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Depends on how you define "worse." The Dems invented filibustering/obstruction under W. The Rs may have expanded it, but that was my point. We'll see how fair the Dems play if they lose the Senate next year.

Do you think the Senate will go back to it's proper functioning if the Dems lose control?

It started with Bork.

[sgtclub]

I like this judge:

The 51-year-old man was fined under article 215 of France’s civil code, which states married couples must agree to a “shared communal life”.
A judge has now ruled that this law implies that “sexual relations must form part of a marriage”.
The rare legal decision came after the wife filed for divorce two years ago, blaming the break-up on her husband’s lack of activity in the bedroom.
A judge in Nice, southern France, then granted the divorce and ruled the husband named only as Jean-Louis B. was solely responsible for the split.
But the 47-year-old ex-wife then took him back to court demanding 10,000 euros in compensation for “lack of sex over 21 years of marriage”.
The ex-husband claimed “tiredness and health problems” had prevented him from being more attentive between the sheets.
But a judge in the south of France’s highest court in Aix-en-Provence ruled: “A sexual relationship between husband and wife is the expression of affection they have for each other, and in this case it was absent.
“By getting married, couples agree to sharing their life and this clearly implies they will have sex with each other.”

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

It started with Bork.

you're right, but the R's didn't retaliate, perhaps because the Dems didn't matter for a decade thereafter.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

It started with Bork.

Really? You don't think Bork had anything to do with the muck of Irangate and Watergate, a world in which Republicans felt free to break laws to win elections? Feeling nostalgic for the squeeky-clean world of Lee Atwater and Spiro Agnew?

There's an argument to be made that the Rs today are still a couple steps shy of G. Gordon Liddy territory, and that the Republican party of today, complete with local parties engaged in Glock auctions, is still not embracing it's reprehensible elements to the same degree that Nixon did at the birth of the southern strategy. I don't think Sarah Palin or Michele Bachman would openly pander to racism the way it was done in the 60s and 70s (by conservative dems as well as many national Rs).

Kennedy gave to Bork but a fraction of what he personally had been given by others in his career prior to that date. I really don't think there is that much different about today's Republican party than at any time since Goldwater, other than the relative weakness of the Northern Rs and the ability of the Rs to attract many of the most reprehensible Dems in the South away from the party.

[Gattigap]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

I like this judge:

But 10,000 euros for 21 years of marriage? I'm amused by the general concept, but shit, if we're going for it, go big and attach some value to it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

The Dems invented filibustering/obstruction under W.

This is a ridiculous assertion. What W initiative had majority support but didn't get a vote? Specifically re judicial nominees, see this.

Do you think the Senate will go back to it's proper functioning if the Dems lose control?

The Democrats actually control ("control") the Senate right now, so the way you've phrased this is funny and telling.

I think what you see happening in the Senate is largely a function of what is happening with the political parties. Moderate Republicans are a disappearing species. People like Orrin Hatch can't work across the aisle like they once did not because of anything the Democrats have done, but because they fear a primary opponent.

Which gets at the point that this is not about a few Republicans or Democrats acting "bad," as you say. This is about a fundamental change in the GOP. Until sufficient voters reject what the GOP has become, we are stuck with them.