tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4988839706387198339.post6006291559254902585..comments2024-03-17T12:51:46.412-07:00Comments on Cutting Through The Crap: Busting The Busted BusterSid Schwabhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14182853083503404098noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4988839706387198339.post-85442816429352189622010-02-16T14:10:30.204-08:002010-02-16T14:10:30.204-08:00PT: ever take one of those tests where among the c...PT: ever take one of those tests where among the choices was "True, true, and unrelated"? Your points are a little like that. <br /><br />First of all, Rachel's challenge was to come up with a new name.<br /><br />Second, I've seen the Obama letter, too (it contains more than you included, but nothing relevant.) If it's authentic it's surprising, vis a vis the founding fathers. Nevertheless, supporting the idea of filibuster is not the same as justifying its use as wielded currently, by the Rs, in unprecedented ways. Nor would I take the letter as authentic without question, since the guy who posted it didn't demonstrate an actual copy, while claiming his rendition was real.<br /><br />That filibuster has been used before is not to justify the de-facto change to supermajority requirements in all things. The founding fathers did specify when supermajorities were required, and it most surely was NOT as used now. <br /><br />I guess I'd have to listen to Rachel again to see if she really said, in a context that you imply, that it was used only once in the 50s. In any case, back then, it was an actual filibuster, with the requirement of continued holding of the floor. So now it's not only being abused in ways never before seen, it's not even necessary to get up and talk. <br /><br />If you really believe the majority ought not have the power to pass laws, then I guess you're in the wrong form of government. And if Obama really said what he is claimed to have said, he is, too. <br /><br />Perhaps, though, the operative word is "tyrannical." If so, I'd guess his definition would differ significantly from yours.Sid Schwabhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14182853083503404098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4988839706387198339.post-71032236442645654182010-02-16T13:20:59.601-08:002010-02-16T13:20:59.601-08:00I'd like to take Rachel's challenge by sen...I'd like to take Rachel's challenge by sending in a 2005 e-mail from President Obama himself which is copied/pasted below with salient points in ALL CAPS.<br />...........................<br />From: senator_obama@obama.senate.gov [mailto:senator_obama@obama.senate.gov] <br />Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 11:02 AM<br />To: Hoven, Randall M<br />Subject: Message from Senator Barack Obama<br /><br />Dear Randall:<br /><br />Thank you for your letter. I appreciate hearing from you.<br /><br />I recognize that the filibuster can be used for unfortunate purposes. However, I am also aware that THE FOUNDING FATHERS established the filibuster as a means of PROTECTING THE MINORITY FROM THE TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY -- and that protection, with some changes, has been in place for over 200 years. <br /><br />Again, thank you for writing. Please stay in touch.<br /><br />Sincerely,<br /><br />Barack Obama<br />United States Senator<br />...........................<br /><br />1.) Obama obviously supports the filibuster (as do I) because it prevents 51% from forcing tyrannical legislation upon the other 49%. The thought of either Republicans or Dems passing whatever they wish with a simple 51% majority is absolutely terrifying to me.<br /><br />2.) Obama, a constitutional law professor, is incorrect in stating that the founding fathers included the filibuster in the constitution. That's disheartening that he didn't know that.<br /><br />3.) A few points I'd like to add to Rachel's assertion that the filibuster was used only once in the 1950's.<br />3a.) It was first used in 1837<br />3b.) It was used (unsuccessfully)by DEMOCRATS in an attempt to stop the Civil Rights Act of 1964<br /><br />Regards,<br />PrecordialThump<br /><br />Source:<br />http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/02/obama_was_for_the_filibuster_i.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4988839706387198339.post-32734984120148350462010-02-16T08:54:35.990-08:002010-02-16T08:54:35.990-08:00PS: I'll say this: Tom Harkin went down in my ...PS: I'll say this: Tom Harkin went down in my eyes with his support of "alternative" medicine. In that, he's an idiot. However, just as you've occasionally made sense (one has to work hard to find it), even US senators can't be wrong in everything.Sid Schwabhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14182853083503404098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4988839706387198339.post-47577440027683323282010-02-16T08:42:44.813-08:002010-02-16T08:42:44.813-08:00"Representative." Good one.
"Funny..."Representative." Good one.<br /><br />"Funny how..." Better (because, you know, that's the point...)<br /><br />"360 degrees off." Best.Sid Schwabhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14182853083503404098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4988839706387198339.post-67780094279197802432010-02-16T04:03:13.005-08:002010-02-16T04:03:13.005-08:00Gee, doesn't represenative democracy suck...
N...Gee, doesn't represenative democracy suck...<br />Nice proposal, maybe y'all could close Git-Mo and repeat Dont Ask Dont Smell finally...Oh, those only require an Executive Order? Never Mind.<br />Funny how the Reagan Tax Cuts/Bush Tax Cuts Desert Storm/Iraqui Freedom, Welfare Reform, Medicare Part D, DOMA passed without any problems..<br />As usual Sid, your 360 degrees off, the number required to pass a bill should go UP as time passes, makes sure only bills with broad appeal(i.e DOMA) make it and encourages com-promise...<br /><br />And since y'all love ad-homo attacks so much, Tom Harkin is one of the least effective Senators in the history of the Senate. Makes Dan Quayle look like friggin Steve Hawkings, and he's got an Axis 1 Diagnosis if you know what I mean...<br /><br />FrankAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com