Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (230826)	4/27/2005 9:40:30 AM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1573843

"No, it's the "religious party" that is threatening to change the rules wrt filibusters; the nuclear option." The infuriating thing is they have been lying about their role in psst filibusters, pretending that this is a new, and unconstitutional phenomena. It's not that they are doing it, they are politicians after all, but our so-called journalists let them get away with it. Heck, the other day I was listening to NPR and heard John Cornyn, our very own entry in the dull knife drawer, state in essence that judicial nominations have never been filibustered before. And we needed to do something before a Supreme Court nominee got filibustered, totally shredding the Constitution in the process. I don't know, the Republicans filibustered a Supreme Court nominee in 1968 and the Constitution seems to have survived that crisis. I know, I know, it was different then since it was a Republican filibuster and they did it with the greatest respect of the Constitution... It is amusing to note that the Republicans are pretending that the Democrats are the only ones using the phrase "nuclear option". Given that a Republican coined the term and that they have been using the phrase consistently until recently makes it seem strange. I guess this is like the term "privatization" in conjunction with Social Security. They just have so much trouble getting the terminology right.

To: Road Walker who wrote (230826)	4/27/2005 11:14:35 AM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 1573843

JF, No, it's the "religious party" that is threatening to change the rules wrt filibusters; the nuclear option. So let's say the tables are turned, and the so-called "religious party" is in the minority. If they start using the filibuster to, as you say, push a "religious debate," you and Ted and CJ would advocate using the "nuclear option" without a second thought. How do I know this? I can tell from the way you guys accuse only the other side of partisan politics. (Oh, sorry, "religious politics.") Any political option is OK if it's your side, but if it's the other side, you guys would be having kittens. By the way, just for the record, I don't think the GOP should use the "nuclear option." George Will said it best. There is a political solution to all of the filibustering going on: a 60 senator majority. I'd take that idea further and say with the number of "red states" in this nation, a 60 senator majority is very possible in the Senate. Tenchusatsu

To: Road Walker who wrote (230826)	4/27/2005 2:36:19 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573843

It's just amazing to me that this, and so much more in US politics has become a religious debate, at least for the right. And it grows with each passing day. I have a suspicion there is a 'silent majority' who are about ready to raise their ugly heads and bite off the necks of these religious cacklers. Even in TX, I think they have had enough.......a bill that would have recalled 3000 kids placed in gay foster homes, and heavily promoted by religious conservatives failed recently in the TX legislature. ted