Home› Non Cigar Related

"Democrats watch in awe as McConnell filibusters himself"

jgibvjgibv Posts: 9,244 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Non Cigar Related
LINK Here

“What we have here is a case of Republicans here in the Senate once again not taking ‘yes’ for an answer,” Reid said, after McConnell announced his filibuster. “This morning the Republican leader asked consent to have a vote on this proposal, just now I told everyone we were willing to have that vote — up or down vote. Now the Republican leader objects to his own idea. So I guess we have a filibuster of his own bill, so I object.”


No wonder congress' approval rating is "Stuck in (a) Long-Term Low Streak" ... ay ay ay

* I have a new address as of 3/24/18 *

«1

Comments

  • JDHJDH Posts: 2,107 ✭
    "What we have here is failure to communicate." (from Cool Hand Luke)

    McConnell fillibustering himself is probably the most approproiate thing the man has ever done in his life, his crowning achievement.

  • jgibvjgibv Posts: 9,244 ✭✭✭✭✭
    JDH:
    "What we have here is failure to communicate." (from Cool Hand Luke)

    McConnell fillibustering himself is probably the most approproiate thing the man has ever done in his life, his crowning achievement.

    LOL
    Really shows how committed McConnell is to the filibuster, no? eeeeehhhh

    * I have a new address as of 3/24/18 *

  • VulchorVulchor Posts: 4,848 ✭✭✭✭
    Lollllllllll--------Its almost sad in a way to see these power hungry, aging, well to do, WASPS try so hard to go back to an imginary way live used to be a century ago.
  • webmostwebmost Posts: 7,713 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Vulchor:
    Lollllllllll--------Its almost sad in a way to see these power hungry, aging, well to do, WASPS try so hard to go back to an imginary way live used to be a century ago.
    You mean back when government wasn't a ubiquitous fifty ton blood sucking snooping octopus squeezing the last breath of liberty out of us?

    Yeah. Sad.

    “It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)
  • VulchorVulchor Posts: 4,848 ✭✭✭✭
    I think if the 50's had 24hr news, social media, and a general human feeling of distrust we wouldnt have the same view we do of the time period. Things were just done quieter and people didnt talk about things they didnt like, they just went on. Corporate greed and money before morals is what has changed----govt. has always been what it is now, just in different suits.
  • JDHJDH Posts: 2,107 ✭
    webmost:
    Vulchor:
    Lollllllllll--------Its almost sad in a way to see these power hungry, aging, well to do, WASPS try so hard to go back to an imginary way live used to be a century ago.
    You mean back when government wasn't a ubiquitous fifty ton blood sucking snooping octopus squeezing the last breath of liberty out of us?

    Yeah. Sad.

    You nailed it! Except you described the Koch boys, not the government.
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,633 ✭✭✭✭
    .
    Kuzi's Forum Links Page
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,633 ✭✭✭✭
    fiscal cliff?
    part of the Mayan Apocalypse?

    DOOOOOOM!!!

    im not as worried about the fiscal cliff as others seem to be.


    CLICK
    i though i was editing the above post .... my bad.
    Kuzi's Forum Links Page
  • JDHJDH Posts: 2,107 ✭
    Vulchor:
    I think if the 50's had 24hr news, social media, and a general human feeling of distrust we wouldnt have the same view we do of the time period. Things were just done quieter and people didnt talk about things they didnt like, they just went on. Corporate greed and money before morals is what has changed----govt. has always been what it is now, just in different suits.
    In the 1950's there was an almost universally accepted feeling of genuine patriotism resulting from victory in WWII. It was also almost universally believed that the US government was a force for good in the world, and most Americans of military age either had been in the military or would be in the military. We trusted our government, and Republicans and Democrats respected each other, and recognized that they were all on the same "team". They did not hate each other, and it would have been impossible for a Congressman to have interrupted an elected President as he spoke before the House of Representatives by shouting out "You Lie!".
  • The_KidThe_Kid Posts: 7,869 ✭✭✭
    Vulchor:
    Lollllllllll--------Its almost sad in a way to see these power hungry, aging, well to do, WASPS try so hard to go back to an imginary way live used to be a century ago.
    (WASPS???) Are we now stereotyping by race and religion, Gosh I hope not!
  • JDHJDH Posts: 2,107 ✭
    The Kid:
    Vulchor:
    Lollllllllll--------Its almost sad in a way to see these power hungry, aging, well to do, WASPS try so hard to go back to an imginary way live used to be a century ago.
    (WASPS???) Are we now stereotyping by race and religion, Gosh I hope not!
    Not stereotyping, but we can use acronyms with some degree of acrimony while wistfully waxing for the WASPY ways of days long past.
  • OldBlueEyes2012OldBlueEyes2012 Posts: 239
    JDH:
    Vulchor:
    I think if the 50's had 24hr news, social media, and a general human feeling of distrust we wouldnt have the same view we do of the time period. Things were just done quieter and people didnt talk about things they didnt like, they just went on. Corporate greed and money before morals is what has changed----govt. has always been what it is now, just in different suits.
    In the 1950's there was an almost universally accepted feeling of genuine patriotism resulting from victory in WWII. It was also almost universally believed that the US government was a force for good in the world, and most Americans of military age either had been in the military or would be in the military. We trusted our government, and Republicans and Democrats respected each other, and recognized that they were all on the same "team". They did not hate each other, and it would have been impossible for a Congressman to have interrupted an elected President as he spoke before the House of Representatives by shouting out "You Lie!".
    I see where you're coming from, but I think what Vulchor was trying to say is that the more unappealing side of governmental affairs in the 1950's was kept more of a secret as it is now. Sure, it wasn't acceptable for a Congressman to interrupt a president during a speech, but it was also unacceptable to have nosy media involved in all facets of the inter-workings of the white house and congress. It's hard for any of us to really say how we would have perceived the time in it's true light, because social media wasn't what it is today.
  • The_KidThe_Kid Posts: 7,869 ✭✭✭
    JDH:
    The Kid:
    Vulchor:
    Lollllllllll--------Its almost sad in a way to see these power hungry, aging, well to do, WASPS try so hard to go back to an imginary way live used to be a century ago.
    (WASPS???) Are we now stereotyping by race and religion, Gosh I hope not!
    Not stereotyping, but we can use acronyms with some degree of acrimony while wistfully waxing for the WASPY ways of days long past.
    FWIW I find yours and Vulchors comments distasteful and disturbing.
  • JDHJDH Posts: 2,107 ✭
    OldBlueEyes2012:
    JDH:
    Vulchor:
    I think if the 50's had 24hr news, social media, and a general human feeling of distrust we wouldnt have the same view we do of the time period. Things were just done quieter and people didnt talk about things they didnt like, they just went on. Corporate greed and money before morals is what has changed----govt. has always been what it is now, just in different suits.
    In the 1950's there was an almost universally accepted feeling of genuine patriotism resulting from victory in WWII. It was also almost universally believed that the US government was a force for good in the world, and most Americans of military age either had been in the military or would be in the military. We trusted our government, and Republicans and Democrats respected each other, and recognized that they were all on the same "team". They did not hate each other, and it would have been impossible for a Congressman to have interrupted an elected President as he spoke before the House of Representatives by shouting out "You Lie!".
    I see where you're coming from, but I think what Vulchor was trying to say is that the more unappealing side of governmental affairs in the 1950's was kept more of a secret as it is now. Sure, it wasn't acceptable for a Congressman to interrupt a president during a speech, but it was also unacceptable to have nosy media involved in all facets of the inter-workings of the white house and congress. It's hard for any of us to really say how we would have perceived the time in it's true light, because social media wasn't what it is today.
    That's true. My sister says that social media is the "great equalizer", and has the potential to neutralize vast sums of money in our electoral politics. I don't know if that's accurate, but it definately IS a force to be reconed with in a democratic society that respects and protects freedom of speech and the free exchange of ideas.
  • JDHJDH Posts: 2,107 ✭
    The Kid:
    JDH:
    The Kid:
    Vulchor:
    Lollllllllll--------Its almost sad in a way to see these power hungry, aging, well to do, WASPS try so hard to go back to an imginary way live used to be a century ago.
    (WASPS???) Are we now stereotyping by race and religion, Gosh I hope not!
    Not stereotyping, but we can use acronyms with some degree of acrimony while wistfully waxing for the WASPY ways of days long past.
    FWIW I find yours and Vulchors comments distasteful and disturbing.
    Good for you. I'm glad you found my comments, but I have no idea how they got in the distasteful and disturbing drawer.
  • beatnicbeatnic Posts: 4,133 ✭
    Great fights in governmental history

    Link
  • The_KidThe_Kid Posts: 7,869 ✭✭✭
    JDH:
    The Kid:
    JDH:
    The Kid:
    Vulchor:
    Lollllllllll--------Its almost sad in a way to see these power hungry, aging, well to do, WASPS try so hard to go back to an imginary way live used to be a century ago.
    (WASPS???) Are we now stereotyping by race and religion, Gosh I hope not!
    Not stereotyping, but we can use acronyms with some degree of acrimony while wistfully waxing for the WASPY ways of days long past.
    FWIW I find yours and Vulchors comments distasteful and disturbing.
    Good for you. I'm glad you found my comments, but I have no idea how they got in the distasteful and disturbing drawer.
    You dont?? why Its what you'll find in every drawer of the racist dresser.
  • JDHJDH Posts: 2,107 ✭
    The Kid:
    JDH:
    The Kid:
    JDH:
    The Kid:
    Vulchor:
    Lollllllllll--------Its almost sad in a way to see these power hungry, aging, well to do, WASPS try so hard to go back to an imginary way live used to be a century ago.
    (WASPS???) Are we now stereotyping by race and religion, Gosh I hope not!
    Not stereotyping, but we can use acronyms with some degree of acrimony while wistfully waxing for the WASPY ways of days long past.
    FWIW I find yours and Vulchors comments distasteful and disturbing.
    Good for you. I'm glad you found my comments, but I have no idea how they got in the distasteful and disturbing drawer.
    You dont?? why Its what you'll find in every drawer of the racist dresser.
    Racist in what way? FYI WASP is an acronym for White Anglo Saxon Protestant, which is what our Congress and Executive and Judicial Branch was largly comprised of in the 1950's. No women, no people of color, gays weren't just in the closet, that closet was locked up in the basement, and Protestant Christians were the overwhelming majority. Period. It's just simple historical fact, nothing more, nothing less, and in this context, I believe Vulchor was just poking fun at those who would take us back to those days, and I completely agree with him on that point. If you see racism in that, well, you certainly have my sympathy, but not my apology. As a standing rule, I only appologize when I'm wrong.
  • kaspera79kaspera79 Posts: 7,257 ✭✭✭
    Hmmm. I would say the term may be considered derogatory, or disparaging, and probably not used to refer to one's own self, but not racist it the true sense of the word. Just my opinion.
  • The_KidThe_Kid Posts: 7,869 ✭✭✭
    kaspera79:
    Hmmm. I would say the term may be considered derogatory, or disparaging, and probably not used to refer to one's own self, but not racist it the true sense of the word. Just my opinion.
    No the term in itself is not racist, but having acrimony towards a group based on their race, creed and or religion is.
  • kaspera79kaspera79 Posts: 7,257 ✭✭✭
    The Kid:
    kaspera79:
    Hmmm. I would say the term may be considered derogatory, or disparaging, and probably not used to refer to one's own self, but not racist it the true sense of the word. Just my opinion.
    No the term in itself is not racist, but having acrimony towards a group based on their race, creed and or religion is.
    On THAT, I would agree.
  • The_KidThe_Kid Posts: 7,869 ✭✭✭
    kaspera79:
    The Kid:
    kaspera79:
    Hmmm. I would say the term may be considered derogatory, or disparaging, and probably not used to refer to one's own self, but not racist it the true sense of the word. Just my opinion.
    No the term in itself is not racist, but having acrimony towards a group based on their race, creed and or religion is.
    On THAT, I would agree.
    Furthermore their negative connotations towards WASPS is at the very least stereotyping which in itself is a form a prejudice
  • VulchorVulchor Posts: 4,848 ✭✭✭✭
    The last thing I will say on your side of this subject kid is the following. I am a white anglo saxon myself, catholic by birth----somewhere between that and athiest now. How I could be racist toward myself doesnt seem to make sense. Nor am I racist, and as JDH says it was said not only tongue in cheek, but also as a fair representation of the politics of the day----and hell, even the make up of our govt. today if you look at the proportion of elected officals against the gender and race makup of the country as a whole

    Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, your comment was little more than an ad hominem one about my feelings, as opposed to the topic being discussed here. Thats good for distraction, but does little beyond this---and actually what our govt. engages in quite frequently. Anyway, as I said I am done of this part of the subject and have no ill feelings toward you and of course you are entitled to your opinions and feelings.
  • JDHJDH Posts: 2,107 ✭
    The Kid:
    kaspera79:
    Hmmm. I would say the term may be considered derogatory, or disparaging, and probably not used to refer to one's own self, but not racist it the true sense of the word. Just my opinion.
    No the term in itself is not racist, but having acrimony towards a group based on their race, creed and or religion is.
    The acrimony is based, not on contempt for their "race creed or religion", but for the the fact that in the 1950's there was no such thing as diversity in our government, dummy. The WASP society that controlled the United States in the 1950's was devoid of women and people of color in positions of power, and Protestant Christians dominated not only government, but nearly corner of power in the US. It took the Civil Rights movement and the Women's Liberation movement to allow the society we live in today to exist. Poking fun at the WASPS in charge during the 1950's, who did everything in their power to prevent people of color and women from gaining access to the basic freedoms that our Constitution was designed to protect isn't racist, it's satire, and satire is a form of humor - as in Lenny Bruce, or George Carlin who weren't racist either.
  • JDHJDH Posts: 2,107 ✭
    The Kid:
    kaspera79:
    The Kid:
    kaspera79:
    Hmmm. I would say the term may be considered derogatory, or disparaging, and probably not used to refer to one's own self, but not racist it the true sense of the word. Just my opinion.
    No the term in itself is not racist, but having acrimony towards a group based on their race, creed and or religion is.
    On THAT, I would agree.
    Furthermore their negative connotations towards WASPS is at the very least stereotyping which in itself is a form a prejudice
    The negative connotations toward WASPS in this context is not sterotyping, but reflecting on the FACTS of life in America in the 1950's.
  • The_KidThe_Kid Posts: 7,869 ✭✭✭
    JDH:
    The Kid:
    kaspera79:
    Hmmm. I would say the term may be considered derogatory, or disparaging, and probably not used to refer to one's own self, but not racist it the true sense of the word. Just my opinion.
    No the term in itself is not racist, but having acrimony towards a group based on their race, creed and or religion is.
    The acrimony is based, not on contempt for their "race creed or religion", but for the the fact that in the 1950's there was no such thing as diversity in our government, dummy. The WASP society that controlled the United States in the 1950's was devoid of women and people of color in positions of power, and Protestant Christians dominated not only government, but nearly corner of power in the US. It took the Civil Rights movement and the Women's Liberation movement to allow the society we live in today to exist. Poking fun at the WASPS in charge during the 1950's, who did everything in their power to prevent people of color and women from gaining access to the basic freedoms that our Constitution was designed to protect isn't racist, it's satire, and satire is a form of humor - as in Lenny Bruce, or George Carlin who weren't racist either.
    Not every WASP has the same political agenda and yes you are stereotyping them and I find it hilarious that you are using the term as oppossers to the Civil rights movement and the Womans Liberation movement.
  • The_KidThe_Kid Posts: 7,869 ✭✭✭
    Vulchor:
    The last thing I will say on your side of this subject kid is the following. I am a white anglo saxon myself, catholic by birth----somewhere between that and athiest now. How I could be racist toward myself doesnt seem to make sense. Nor am I racist, and as JDH says it was said not only tongue in cheek, but also as a fair representation of the politics of the day----and hell, even the make up of our govt. today if you look at the proportion of elected officals against the gender and race makup of the country as a whole

    Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, your comment was little more than an ad hominem one about my feelings, as opposed to the topic being discussed here. Thats good for distraction, but does little beyond this---and actually what our govt. engages in quite frequently. Anyway, as I said I am done of this part of the subject and have no ill feelings toward you and of course you are entitled to your opinions and feelings.
    Vulchor, you have the right to voice your feelings thoughts in any way you want, but I do take offense when any group of persons identified by their race and creed are illuminated in a negative light. I will accept your explanation that it was not your intention to do so. Your comments turned a political issue into one about race and creed by using the term WASP. I'll ask Do all WASP's have the same political agenda? Without getting into alot of detail I did take more offense to JDH's comments than yours and in conjunction of both of your comments I made my statements. I have no Ill feelings toward you or JDH and in the future I will try to adhere to my own advice and keep my comments and viewpoints to myself. I am not here to discuss political or controversal issues however it does make for some interesting conversation and at times some enlightening viewpoints develop which I respect. This is not one of those times.
  • JDHJDH Posts: 2,107 ✭
    The Kid:
    JDH:
    The Kid:
    kaspera79:
    Hmmm. I would say the term may be considered derogatory, or disparaging, and probably not used to refer to one's own self, but not racist it the true sense of the word. Just my opinion.
    No the term in itself is not racist, but having acrimony towards a group based on their race, creed and or religion is.
    The acrimony is based, not on contempt for their "race creed or religion", but for the the fact that in the 1950's there was no such thing as diversity in our government, dummy. The WASP society that controlled the United States in the 1950's was devoid of women and people of color in positions of power, and Protestant Christians dominated not only government, but nearly corner of power in the US. It took the Civil Rights movement and the Women's Liberation movement to allow the society we live in today to exist. Poking fun at the WASPS in charge during the 1950's, who did everything in their power to prevent people of color and women from gaining access to the basic freedoms that our Constitution was designed to protect isn't racist, it's satire, and satire is a form of humor - as in Lenny Bruce, or George Carlin who weren't racist either.
    Not every WASP has the same political agenda and yes you are stereotyping them and I find it hilarious that you are using the term as oppossers to the Civil rights movement and the Womans Liberation movement.
    PM to you.
  • Amos_UmwhatAmos_Umwhat Posts: 8,814 ✭✭✭✭✭
    JDH:
    webmost:
    Vulchor:
    Lollllllllll--------Its almost sad in a way to see these power hungry, aging, well to do, WASPS try so hard to go back to an imginary way live used to be a century ago.
    You mean back when government wasn't a ubiquitous fifty ton blood sucking snooping octopus squeezing the last breath of liberty out of us?

    Yeah. Sad.

    You nailed it! Except you described the Koch boys, not the government.
    bingo!
    WARNING:  The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme.  Proceed at your own risk.  

    "If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed.  If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." --  Mark Twain
  • JDHJDH Posts: 2,107 ✭
    JDH:
    The Kid:
    JDH:
    The Kid:
    kaspera79:
    Hmmm. I would say the term may be considered derogatory, or disparaging, and probably not used to refer to one's own self, but not racist it the true sense of the word. Just my opinion.
    No the term in itself is not racist, but having acrimony towards a group based on their race, creed and or religion is.
    The acrimony is based, not on contempt for their "race creed or religion", but for the the fact that in the 1950's there was no such thing as diversity in our government, dummy. The WASP society that controlled the United States in the 1950's was devoid of women and people of color in positions of power, and Protestant Christians dominated not only government, but nearly corner of power in the US. It took the Civil Rights movement and the Women's Liberation movement to allow the society we live in today to exist. Poking fun at the WASPS in charge during the 1950's, who did everything in their power to prevent people of color and women from gaining access to the basic freedoms that our Constitution was designed to protect isn't racist, it's satire, and satire is a form of humor - as in Lenny Bruce, or George Carlin who weren't racist either.
    Not every WASP has the same political agenda and yes you are stereotyping them and I find it hilarious that you are using the term as oppossers to the Civil rights movement and the Womans Liberation movement.
    PM to you.
    You are making the mistake that so many followers of Political Correctness often make; you are ignoring the historical context of the statement you criticize. I am not finding fault with the behavior of WASPs today. I am describing the REALITY of the distribution of power in the US in the 1950's. White Anglo Saxon Protestants owned it then, and women and minorities need not apply. The Catholicism of John F. Kennedy was highly controversial in the election of 1960, especially in the south.

    I would suggest you read Sinclair Lewis, who nailed Midwestern WASP society. You will find in "Babbitt", "It Can't Happen Here", and "Main Street" descriptions of White Anglo Saxon Protestants in historical context that are relevant and accurate today.

    You should also consider that across the south in the 1950's members of the "WASP" Southern Baptist Church almost universally supported the legally instituted Aparthied of the Jim Crow Laws, and opposed the Civil Rights Movement, which was dominated by African American Southern Baptists, often with acts of violence.

Sign In or Register to comment.