Org Mobile Site
Thread: Woohoo! Go, Scott Brown.
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
I find the whole idea that Republicans are bringing about a new era of obstruction quite exaggerated.
This is not your grandfather's GOP anymore.I find the whole idea that Republicans are bringing about a new era of obstruction quite exaggerated.
'Unprecendented obstructionism as the new normal in American politics', lots of stats and numbers: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/1...the-New-Normal
The Democrats indeed have a 59 seat minority.
"As long as I have served...I've never seen, as my uncle once said, the constitution stood on its head as they've done. This is the first time every single solitary decision has required 60 senators. No democracy has survived needing a supermajority." - Joe Biden.
Originally Posted by :
And didn't Pelosi do a tour of the Mid-east when Bush was president?
Indeed Pelosi went to Syria. Her visit was widely criticised at home - as it ought to be. And didn't Pelosi do a tour of the Mid-east when Bush was president?
Originally Posted by :
DAMASCUS, Syria, April 3 — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi arrived in Syria on Tuesday for a visit that is seen as part of an attempt to sway Bush administration policy on Iraq and the rest of the Middle East.
Ms. Pelosi, the third-ranking elected official in the United States, behind the president and the vice president, is the most senior American politician to visit Syria since relations between the countries faltered in 2003. She was greeted Tuesday afternoon at the airport in Damascus, the capital, by Walid al-Moallem, Syria’s foreign minister, and was taken on a tour of the old part of the city. She was to meet with President Bashar al-Assad and other senior officials on Wednesday.
At the White House, President Bush criticized Ms. Pelosi’s visit, saying it sent mixed signals to the Middle East and to President Bashar’s government.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/04/wo.../04pelosi.html
DAMASCUS, Syria, April 3 — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi arrived in Syria on Tuesday for a visit that is seen as part of an attempt to sway Bush administration policy on Iraq and the rest of the Middle East.
Ms. Pelosi, the third-ranking elected official in the United States, behind the president and the vice president, is the most senior American politician to visit Syria since relations between the countries faltered in 2003. She was greeted Tuesday afternoon at the airport in Damascus, the capital, by Walid al-Moallem, Syria’s foreign minister, and was taken on a tour of the old part of the city. She was to meet with President Bashar al-Assad and other senior officials on Wednesday.
At the White House, President Bush criticized Ms. Pelosi’s visit, saying it sent mixed signals to the Middle East and to President Bashar’s government.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/04/wo.../04pelosi.html
Hah, I remember that. Pelosi also allowed herself to be photographed while wearing a headscarf. She also said in a discussion with Syrian officials that Israel was willing to resume the peace process with the Palestinians. The Israelis responded that they had said nothing of the sort 
Oh my, a liberal blog linking to another liberal blog showing the results of only several votes in 20+ years. And with no evidence of 'unprecedented filibusters' - which was the domain of the Dems during the Bush years, and was only projected poorly to be higher by the Republicans. Now, I'm sure bills have gotten passed in the Senate, so the GOP isn't opposing everything.
The dems filibustered a number of Bush's judicial appointees as well.
Maybe the dems ought to stop whining and get on leading. Either persuade the GOP to go along with some bills or use the press to force them to.
Bush did it just fine, but I suppose that's only because he was a much more effective leader.
CR
The dems filibustered a number of Bush's judicial appointees as well.
Maybe the dems ought to stop whining and get on leading. Either persuade the GOP to go along with some bills or use the press to force them to.
Bush did it just fine, but I suppose that's only because he was a much more effective leader.
CR
Originally Posted by :
"[Our opposition to Healthcare reform] is going to be a holy war," Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) said Wednesday evening.
Wow, just wow. I know the USA just pretends to be a secular republic, but that's just maleovelent."[Our opposition to Healthcare reform] is going to be a holy war," Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) said Wednesday evening.
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars:
Conservatives don't want to keep the status quo, we just don't want that sort of "change."
But the democrats are failing to change anything, it is being said.Conservatives don't want to keep the status quo, we just don't want that sort of "change."
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
But the democrats are failing to change anything, it is being said.
Then the Republicans are opposed to the Democrats not changing anything, and are therefore in favour of change. But the democrats are failing to change anything, it is being said.
Originally Posted by Subotan:
Wow, just wow. I know the USA just pretends to be a secular republic, but that's just maleovelent.
It is a secular republic, and that statement in no way negates that fact, as you know.Wow, just wow. I know the USA just pretends to be a secular republic, but that's just maleovelent.
Yanno... I used to view our Evil_Maniac From Mars as an attention-seeking kinda guy, what with his choice of names and all (no offense, E 
)
Lately, I've come to regard him as a stentorophonic, while whispering, Voice of Reason.
on-topic: Mr. Scott Brown: interesting to see what he does in the next 90 days, and whether Mass thinks they got their money's worth, or have buyer's remorse.
) Lately, I've come to regard him as a stentorophonic, while whispering, Voice of Reason.
on-topic: Mr. Scott Brown: interesting to see what he does in the next 90 days, and whether Mass thinks they got their money's worth, or have buyer's remorse.
Originally Posted by KukriKhan:
Yanno... I used to view our Evil_Maniac From Mars as an attention-seeking kinda guy, what with his choice of names and all (no offense, E)
None taken. I chose the name, if I recall correctly, because it was the first thing that came to mind at the time. Nonetheless, you're probably right about how I was in the past. Hopefully that hasn't tainted too many views of me, anonymous though this forum is. Yanno... I used to view our Evil_Maniac From Mars as an attention-seeking kinda guy, what with his choice of names and all (no offense, E
) Thank you for the compliment.
I say bring back the knock-down, drag-out, bring in the cots filibusters of old. When the senate created the two track rule, they not only took all the fun out of filibusters, but they also made them effortless to maintain. 
If you want to have endless debate to delay a bill, you should be expected to debate endlessly. Now days, they can just say they're going to filibuster and the senate moves on to another bill.
If you want to have endless debate to delay a bill, you should be expected to debate endlessly. Now days, they can just say they're going to filibuster and the senate moves on to another bill.
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars:
Then the Republicans are opposed to the Democrats not changing anything, and are therefore in favour of change.
They are going to create a status quo in healthcare for at least a decade if this bill fails. Who are going to risk severe damage to their reputation by trying it next? Then the Republicans are opposed to the Democrats not changing anything, and are therefore in favour of change.
Originally Posted by Xiahou:
I say bring back the knock-down, drag-out, bring in the cots filibusters of old. When the senate created the two track rule, they not only took all the fun out of filibusters, but they also made them effortless to maintain.
If you want to have endless debate to delay a bill, you should be expected to debate endlessly. Now days, they can just say they're going to filibuster and the senate moves on to another bill.
That would probably be useful. It's supposed to be a last way defense and not an every day move.I say bring back the knock-down, drag-out, bring in the cots filibusters of old. When the senate created the two track rule, they not only took all the fun out of filibusters, but they also made them effortless to maintain.
If you want to have endless debate to delay a bill, you should be expected to debate endlessly. Now days, they can just say they're going to filibuster and the senate moves on to another bill.
Originally Posted by Ironside:
They are going to create a status quo in healthcare for at least a decade if this bill fails. Who are going to risk severe damage to their reputation by trying it next?
Since most people evidently would prefer the status quo than this bill, that is to be preferred. A better option would have been a truly bipartisan solution.They are going to create a status quo in healthcare for at least a decade if this bill fails. Who are going to risk severe damage to their reputation by trying it next?
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars:
It is a secular republic, and that statement in no way negates that fact, as you know.
OK, so if government and religion are separate, why is there only one atheist congressman? Why would less people vote for a Muslim or a Gay Presidential candidate over an atheist one? Christianity is de facto the state religion.It is a secular republic, and that statement in no way negates that fact, as you know.
That proves nothing; people may vote less for Muslim candidates, but they can still vote for them. Gah, why does it seem like I have to spell everything out?!
CR
Well, there are also not very many people in federal elected positions who are under 30. Those in office are all old, which obviously means the country is racist against young people.
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
That proves nothing; people may vote less for Muslim candidates, but they can still vote for them. Gah, why does it seem like I have to spell everything out?!
CR
That proves nothing; people may vote less for Muslim candidates, but they can still vote for them. Gah, why does it seem like I have to spell everything out?!
CR
What matters is that the electorate has the choice to vote for a member of a certain religion or not, and that they are free to practice their own religion as they please. If every member of Congress was a devout Christian, America would still be a secular nation.
Secularism is not atheism, secularism is freedom.
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars:
Since most people evidently would prefer the status quo than this bill, that is to be preferred.
How is that different from populism? Does the best bill depend on what the people want?Since most people evidently would prefer the status quo than this bill, that is to be preferred.
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
How is that different from populism? Does the best bill depend on what the people want?
Well, theoretically at least, one should do what the people want. It doesn't matter, since in this case the people are right. This bill isn't the best, and what is needed is a truly bipartisan, well thought-out solution. Congress needs to take their time - rushing things through will just make them worse.How is that different from populism? Does the best bill depend on what the people want?
just found this on Martha Coakleys liberal facism:
http://www.popehat.com/2010/01/15/li...artha-coakley/
http://www.popehat.com/2010/01/15/li...artha-coakley/
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars:
What matters is that the electorate has the choice to vote for a member of a certain religion or not, and that they are free to practice their own religion as they please. If every member of Congress was a devout Christian, America would still be a secular nation.
Secularism is not atheism, secularism is freedom.
IDK about that. If every member of Congress was a fundamentalist Christian, they'd find a way to legislate their beliefs into our laws.What matters is that the electorate has the choice to vote for a member of a certain religion or not, and that they are free to practice their own religion as they please. If every member of Congress was a devout Christian, America would still be a secular nation.
Secularism is not atheism, secularism is freedom.
Originally Posted by Scienter:
IDK about that. If every member of Congress was a fundamentalist Christian, they'd find a way to legislate their beliefs into our laws.
Nonetheless, having a Congress made up entirely of members of any one religion does not in itself make for a non-secular state.IDK about that. If every member of Congress was a fundamentalist Christian, they'd find a way to legislate their beliefs into our laws.
Evil_Maniac From Mars, it might be slightly off-topic, but I wondered something a momnt.
Do you fully support a secular state, or in favour of a non-secular state?
Do you fully support a secular state, or in favour of a non-secular state?
Originally Posted by Beskar:
Evil_Maniac From Mars, it might be slightly off-topic, but I wondered something a momnt.
Do you fully support a secular state, or in favour of a non-secular state?
I strongly support a secular state. I dislike the common presumption on both ends of the debate that a secular state is an atheist state.Evil_Maniac From Mars, it might be slightly off-topic, but I wondered something a momnt.
Do you fully support a secular state, or in favour of a non-secular state?
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars:
I strongly support a secular state. I dislike the common presumption on both ends of the debate that a secular state is an atheist state.
It is atheist only in the sense it seperates religion from the state (which is as it should be), however, I do agree, a secular state is not a Atheist Theocracy.I strongly support a secular state. I dislike the common presumption on both ends of the debate that a secular state is an atheist state.
Originally Posted by Beskar:
It is atheist only in the sense it seperates religion from the state
That isn't a atheist, but rather a neutral stance. It is atheist only in the sense it seperates religion from the state
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars:
I strongly support a secular state. I dislike the common presumption on both ends of the debate that a secular state is an atheist state.
What would you consider the main points in a secular state?I strongly support a secular state. I dislike the common presumption on both ends of the debate that a secular state is an atheist state.
More in general, one very different thing how secularism is treated is that here in Sweden and I think most of Europe, is that secularism means that you do not as a politician publically reference to God to explain your opinions or actions. Considered bad form.
The combination of the US obsession of the politician's family and the dislike of aetheists makes the US almost the opposite.
That while they're both secular, at least in theory.
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars:
That isn't a atheist, but rather a neutral stance.
Shush, we were agreeing, don't try to ruin the moment where hell freezes over.That isn't a atheist, but rather a neutral stance.
Originally Posted by Ironside:
What would you consider the main points in a secular state?
Freedom of religion combined with the legal separation of belief systems from the state (religious or atheist).What would you consider the main points in a secular state?
Originally Posted by :
More in general, one very different thing how secularism is treated is that here in Sweden and I think most of Europe, is that secularism means that you do not as a politician publically reference to God to explain your opinions or actions. Considered bad form.
That isn't secularism, just social pressure. Secularism is having the freedom to state your religion, to talk about it, and to reference God if you so choose in the manner of your choosing.More in general, one very different thing how secularism is treated is that here in Sweden and I think most of Europe, is that secularism means that you do not as a politician publically reference to God to explain your opinions or actions. Considered bad form.
Originally Posted by :
The combination of the US obsession of the politician's family and the dislike of aetheists makes the US almost the opposite.
Some groups dislike atheists, and in a secular state, that is their right. The reverse is also true, and it is also their right.The combination of the US obsession of the politician's family and the dislike of aetheists makes the US almost the opposite.
So are Sweden or the UK, with their own state religions, secular states?
Originally Posted by Subotan:
So are Sweden or the UK, with their own state religions, secular states?
That is a difficult question, but I would argue that - in general - yes, they are.So are Sweden or the UK, with their own state religions, secular states?
Originally Posted by Subotan:
So are Sweden or the UK, with their own state religions, secular states?
No. Religion is seperate from the state.So are Sweden or the UK, with their own state religions, secular states?
While in practise in UK at least, the church has lost a lot of power. However, they still have their seats in the House of Lords and other political institutions, have hold an political influence.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO