Aren't budgets filibuster proof?So basically their plan is to pass the most batshit insane thing they can in the House and filibuster anything the Senate tries to do in the hope that it will make them seem reasonable.
Aren't budgets filibuster proof?So basically their plan is to pass the most batshit insane thing they can in the House and filibuster anything the Senate tries to do in the hope that it will make them seem reasonable.
‘Firearms instructor’ hired as school guard leaves handgun in student bathroom
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/1...dent-bathroom/
Aren't budgets filibuster proof?
Because a firearm so empowers an individual vis-a-vis another individual that possession of one becomes the solution to the problem. Society exists in important part to afford safety to individuals within it. Possession of a firearm for self-defense represents to me, first, a belief that society is highly dysfunctional (which is true in my opinion) and, second, an abandonment of a social commitment to fix it. Possession of a firearm for self-defense is necessarily an individual solution to a social problem. Now, I do not mean to say by this that every individual who possesses a firearm is an anti-social cretin who has no interest in fixing a dysfunctional society. I am talking about what it represents at a very abstract level and why I, at least, refuse to accept that individuals ought to have a right to armed self-defense.
Congratulations!
Hasn't been raised yet. There's plenty of time for Obama to make some harmless comment/joke that offends house republicans to a point of further insanityYep Uncle Joe. But PD said!!!
''Budget bills are governed under special rules called "reconciliation" which do not allow filibusters. Reconciliation once only applied to bills that would reduce the budget deficit, but since 1996 it has been used for all matters related to budget issues.''
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate
I'm guessing it's reliable?
Hasn't been raised yet. There's plenty of time for Obama to make some harmless comment/joke that offends house republicans to a point of further insanity
Wow, that's sad. Hadn't read that part of the Wikipedia page, but I remember hearing it during the healthcare debate indeed.Sounds about right, the thing is reconciliation can only be used like once a year (if I remember the health care fight correctly). Either way there are plenty of ways to hold up a budget otherwise we'd just pass one every year.
‘Firearms instructor’ hired as school guard leaves handgun in student bathroom
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/...eaves-unattended-handgun-in-student-bathroom/
Edit: People lost excitement for the website idea?
Today's filibuster news should teach you not to count chickens before they hatch, friend.Don't worry PD, I am sure that Obama will get on his knees and give Boehner whatever he wants. Though Michelle obviously would lose respect for him, that shouldn't matter much since the divorce is a done deal.
Hasn't been raised yet. There's plenty of time for Obama to make some harmless comment/joke that offends house republicans to a point of further insanity
Because a firearm so empowers an individual vis-a-vis another individual that possession of one becomes the solution to the problem. Society exists in important part to afford safety to individuals within it. Possession of a firearm for self-defense represents to me, first, a belief that society is highly dysfunctional (which is true in my opinion) and, second, an abandonment of a social commitment to fix it. Possession of a firearm for self-defense is necessarily an individual solution to a social problem. Now, I do not mean to say by this that every individual who possesses a firearm is an anti-social cretin who has no interest in fixing a dysfunctional society. I am talking about what it represents at a very abstract level and why I, at least, refuse to accept that individuals ought to have a right to armed self-defense.
What happened...?Today's filibuster news should teach you not to count chickens before they hatch, friend.e
A wild collectivist has appeared.
I guess I just disagree. You're even willing to admit that this concept is not only abstract, but also that society isn't completly fucntional. I'm not sure why accepting reality is also the abandonment of a social commitment to fix an issue. To me, at least, this is like saying one shouldn't buy medical insurance because doing so would respresent the abandonment of a desire for a single payer system. You admit this as well though, and to me at least, that seems like you're willing to cling to an ideal rather than accept the reality we currently live in.
What happened...?
But the problem is that the relevant choice isn't between having or not having a gun in a given societal context. That's the choice an individual gun owner makes, and in some cases it's probably rational. In many cases it is not, though, because there are risks that come with gun ownership.
When we're talking about policy, we're not talking about that. The difference is that policy that promotes an individual's ability to keep a gun for self-defense necessarily promotes an individual's ability to obtain a gun for crime. It is possible that curtailing individuals' ability to obtain guns makes virtually everyone safer; yes, you would have fewer options for self-defense, but likewise there would be less need for that level of defensive capability.
How do you not do a talking filibuster...?Even money is Reid folded and we won't be getting filibuster reform.
How do you not do a talking filibuster...?
God damnit =(Yea, I just found what PD was referring to. Apparently he's going to do something, just not reinstate the talking filibuster. I presume because he sucks.
I don't think it's crazy to care more about your own options for self defense than the overall safety in society. Especially when certain experiments with tighter gun control, like the AWB in US and other policies in the UK and Australia have had mostly ambiguous results.
God damnit =(
But he still may invoke what critics call the “nuclear option” to change Senate rules that would limit the use of the filibuster, force senators to hold the floor in certain situations and require those stalling legislation to deliver 41 votes, several people familiar with the matter said Thursday.
For the new page: Think of some name ideas for the blog. If we don't come up with one, I'll probably use Dead Heat, or Dead Heat Politics.
I'm still cool with Dead Heat. No better name to mock the cheesy beltway press and Wolf Blitzer's soulless eyes while sounding like a normal political site.
For the new page: Think of some name ideas for the blog. If we don't come up with one, I'll probably use Dead Heat, or Dead Heat Politics.
I still prefer 'Uncle Joe's coffee talk' or 'Uncle Joe's story time'
Other than "Bad News for Liberals," I can't think of a new name, but I'm not too fond of "dead heat."
I'm striving to attain an ideal, yes. Or at least, something closer to it. You're asking me to recognize a right to armed self-defense, not the mere practicality of it at a given time and context. (That isn't to say, by the way, that I think firearm possession is practical even now. I have never felt any personal need to arm myself despite living in a large urban environment.) Recognition of the right would be to give up on the idea that society can be functional. And I happen to know that it can be. In fact, other societies have at least maintained enough functionality--whatever their other shortcomings may be--such that their citizens feel no need to have a right to armed self-defense. And the US itself has not always been as it is now. So I'm certainly not prepared to give up on the ideal of (at least) a marginally functional society. I don't think that is pie-in-the-sky thinking.
Sounds about right, the thing is reconciliation can only be used like once a year (if I remember the health care fight correctly). Either way there are plenty of ways to hold up a budget otherwise we'd just pass one every year.
How about
"Political wonks that spend more time talking about naming web sites and the next PoliGAF thread than talking about actual politics"
I guess that's not very catchy.
Bad News for Liberals Google +1Other than "Bad News for Liberals," I can't think of a new name, but I'm not too fond of "dead heat."
Hm, that's not that bad. Thanks for the link.It's politico, but this does sound like a plan Reid would put together.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/reid-seeks-middle-path-on-filibuster-86369.html
Like PD says, it's not horrible and is much better than what we have now. I just want the talking filibuster back so I can point to the shithead who is holding something up.
Perhaps the name could be something that plays on the fact that though most contributors will be left-leaning, the degree to which we are lefties varies from person to person. Some of us are pretty close to the Democratic Party's platform while others are much more to the left. Maybe a play on "brokered convention" or something.
You just said in your previous post that you acknowledge simply owning a firearm for protection doesn't automatically mean one has abandoned a desire to move twoards the ideal, yet your own personal beliefs represented in this statement here seem to contradict that. Until society is functional you're only giving into the reality in which we live.
BTW I own my shotgun for small game bird hunting with the family and not for self protection. Though it is somewhat comforting knowing it's there. Perhaps I would agree with you more had I never owned a gun and felt that comfort.
I guess I'm just asking you to recognize the right until the ideal is reached or we're close to it.
Perhaps the name could be something that plays on the fact that though most contributors will be left-leaning, the degree to which we are lefties varies from person to person. Some of us are pretty close to the Democratic Party's platform while others are much more to the left. Maybe a play on "brokered convention" or something.
It seems to have been taken for the last two years with zero content lol.PoliWonks!
That works!
Perhaps the name could be something that plays on the fact that though most contributors will be left-leaning, the degree to which we are lefties varies from person to person. Some of us are pretty close to the Democratic Party's platform while others are much more to the left. Maybe a play on "brokered convention" or something.
Nice."What's Left?"
Also, Obama's official second term portrait has been released:
Uncle Joe's CabinAs long as no one goes downstairs to find Uncle Joe's Dungeon.
politico said:Senators could still filibuster in any number of situations under this approach. But Reid is weighing whether to shift the burden of the filibuster from those who are seeking to defeat it onto those who are threatening to wage one. Rather than requiring 60 votes to break a filibuster, Reid is considering requiring at least 41 senators to sustain a filibuster. That would amount to a subtle shift to force opponents to ensure every senator is present in order to mount a filibuster.
I promised myself if I ever started a left-wing political blog I'd call it "Shrill." But that might be taken already.
Strange, he logged in today according to his profile! hasn't posted here in a long time, has he?People like AlteredBeast would be welcome (wherever the hell he went), for instance.