What is Digg?425 Comments
- booksnmore4you, on 04/06/2009, -40/+324So let them filibuster.
Nothing like a new series of ads about petty and vindictive "Just Say No" Republicans who want to keep the truth in the dark, and who retaliate against the smooth functioning of the government of the United States of America as their response to the truth. - MooreWV, on 04/06/2009, -31/+237Buried as inaccurate. Republicans can't say "nuclear."
- DemiRonin, on 04/06/2009, -28/+176Hmmm Republicans don't want transparency...you don't say...
- teamgwho, on 04/06/2009, -17/+146I hope Obama calls their bluff.
- InetRoadkill, on 04/06/2009, -9/+88Let them filibuster and give them full credit for why they are doing it (sheltering a war criminal). Let's see if they want to carry that record into 2010 for the next election cycle.
- Delphium226, on 04/06/2009, -16/+82The republicans want this kept secret? I thought they were proud of their patriotic efforts to export democracy to the world and to safeguard the US from the freedom-hating 'evildoers'. Surely there's nothing embarrassing or illegal that could implicate their king and religious leader, Bush?
- scottknick, on 04/06/2009, -15/+79"Nuclear option?" Hmmmm. Where have we heard that before?
Oh yeah! It was the term Republicans used when they threatened a rules change TO KEEP DEMOCRATS FROM FILIBUSTERING BUSH'S LEGAL APPOINTMENTS!
I think if the GOP persists in the obstruction of justice and the defense of war crimes, the Democrats ought to introduce the precise same rules change, in the exact same language Tom Delay and those slugs were going to use. The exact same language. Then let's here the Republicans whine about it. - Dreeon, on 04/06/2009, -10/+67Checks and balances are great, but do you want to know what else is good?
Not having blood on your hands... - stubear, on 04/06/2009, -11/+62This isn't checks and balances as the framers envisioned, this is outright vindictive behavior from a bunch of whiny asshats because they aren't going to get what they want.
- MacEnvy, on 04/06/2009, -5/+55Bush tried to do things like appoint his personal lawyer to the Supreme Court. Any comparison is ridiculous.
- eatporktoo, on 04/06/2009, -41/+91not saying blackmail is cool, but checks and balances definitely are....
- theaceoffire, on 04/06/2009, -3/+48I do believe I dropped my monocle in surprise!
- MyTakes, on 04/06/2009, -53/+95Blackmail against the president is a lot like treason, no?
- JanusTheDoorman, on 04/06/2009, -8/+48No, actually.
Aside from the fact that the President isn't the embodiment of the state as a sovereign ruler would be, "blackmail" is a misnomer here. It's not a personal threat, it's just a political counter. The fact that you know they're threatening to do it rather rules out the premise of blackmail. - bsmang, on 04/06/2009, -41/+76The republicans in Congress suck.
- Coven, on 04/06/2009, -10/+45Illuminati? Really? That's what you're going with?
- Novagenesis, on 04/06/2009, -2/+37I don't see why you're getting downmodded (except perhaps strong bias). What you're talking is fact.
I doubt even one Democrat could be pressured to support this threatened filibuster "attack".
With only 41 senators, the Republicans are only two votes strong for the filibuster. I have a feeling if it gets any press coverage, the negative reputation tied both to the reports, and to the filibuster attacks, will clinch enough votes to remove the 40% needed to block the move to vote. - Maddoktor2, on 04/06/2009, -19/+52Go ahead, GOP - filibuster to your heart's content. While you can, that is.
You cheated. You lied. You lost. Game over.
America, you know what to do in 2010. - absurdist, on 04/06/2009, -5/+34Agreed. And do away with the "Gentleman's Filibuster" that's currently allowed. If these cryptofascists want to filibuster, make them stand up there at the podium for hours, days, weeks, and let the American public see exactly what they're doing and why.
The Republicans are stepping into a minefield here. It's like they're trying to become permanently disenfranchised. - whiledo, on 04/06/2009, -2/+29@Shwaavay: Bush nominated 46 people. The Democrats blocked 10 of them. Bush renominated 7 of the exact same people.
"8 years of filibusters of Bush's judicial appointments" sounds so much more bombastic than "blocked 10 appointments", doesn't it?
Ironically, a lot of the opening Bush was filling were ones that were open because the Republicans under Clinton refused to even hold hearings for 60 of his nominees. So much for the party of the "everyone deserves an up or down vote."
The truth of the matter is that both parties do basically the same thing depending on whether they are in power or not and then act like snow white angels when the other side is doing it. Sad, but true. - booksnmore4you, on 04/06/2009, -10/+36DOH! When judicial appointment are held up, transitions in the courts don't go smoothly.
You need to get you ears away from Limbaugh and Hannity and all that ilk. - AmaDaden, on 04/06/2009, -5/+30@Shwaavay As I remember it those filibusters were because they did not like the person up for nomination and knew they did not have the votes to stop them, not because of some totally unrelated incident. This is the equivilant of 'If you do that I'm not gona be your friend no more' school yard politics.
- WasabiBomb, on 04/06/2009, -4/+28As for no conservatives in his administration:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/p ... - inactive, on 04/06/2009, -11/+35A good president does what is right and is not swayed by threats. If you think this through, there is no way the republicans can go through with this now as it is public. In the end, all they want is to be re-elected.
- SpinningHead, on 04/06/2009, -10/+34So republicans wanted to get rid of the filibuster until they became the minority. I guess we now know how their "ethics" work.
- TheSwashbuckler, on 04/06/2009, -5/+29The Obama administration needs to make VERY public what Republicans are doing. They then need to publish those documents to show the public what Republicans wanted to hide from us.
Obama needs to borrow one thing from Bush in this instance: Bring it on... - LilRabbitFooFoo, on 04/06/2009, -5/+28He offered, they went uber political. He called their bluff, and yes, they're irrelevant and hate it. If the GOP had not been Bushco's neocon rubber stamp for 8 years they might have had some people interested in what they have to say now. But they've lost their chance to contribute until they find a way to help instead of whine like children who finally got sent to the woodshed.
- Aero347, on 04/06/2009, -4/+27Hmm.. personal lawyer.. vs.. Dean of Yale.. guess no one said stupidity was illegal.. but the party IS out of office and that sort of speaks for itself.
- IKORKYI, on 04/06/2009, -3/+26this ploy would ruin those filibustering. let them filibuster.
- vyhd, on 04/06/2009, -3/+25It's almost as if both parties have been playing the political game instead of trying to do anything useful. How odd.
- theaceoffire, on 04/06/2009, -5/+27Won't they also be proof that most Republicans defending Bush were both wrong *and* hurting America by doing so?
- thcobbs, on 04/06/2009, -14/+36The people in Congress suck.
There, fixed that for ya. - whiledo, on 04/06/2009, -2/+23It's really fairly simple. The Democrats filibustered judicial appointments because they thought the appointees were unfit for the position.
The Republicans are (supposedly) threatening to filibuster Obama's judicial appointees not because they believe they are unfit for office, but because Obama is following a campaign promise to release information under the Freedom of Information Act (a federal law).
Whether or not you think the Democrats should have filibustered judicial appointments as a way to block those appointees, I don't believe you can honestly say those two situations are parallel. - LilRabbitFooFoo, on 04/06/2009, -2/+23Jason210, read the Constitution. You WILL learn something.
- ThsGuyRightHere, on 04/06/2009, -4/+24Sorry but how would this differ from what they're already doing?
- Kyzzyxx, on 04/06/2009, -3/+22@JCred
Really? Dawn Johnsen has been held up for no other reason except the fact that she can't wait to go after Bush. The ONLY reason the repugs are doing this is cause it could likely ruin them. - epohs, on 04/06/2009, -2/+21This is their domestic spying program turned on it's ear.
If you've done nothing wrong, there's nothing to worry about. - LilRabbitFooFoo, on 04/06/2009, -10/+28The GOP is splitting into two parties before our eyes, and it's LONG overdue. Marginalizing the evangelicals and neocons is a VERY good thing in the 21st century.
- inactive, on 04/06/2009, -1/+19Hey, thecobbs et al
Judicial appointments = Judges.
These two Obama appointments are for position in the justice department... aka NOT Judges.
Let's make sure we're clear on what's going on here. - Delphium226, on 04/06/2009, -3/+21@JCred
'Do you have an actual rebuttal to my statement?'
Where's your rebuttal to the article? There isn't one.
No, you replied with an unsubstantiated brainfart that is comprised of an opinion devoid of facts. What is there to rebut in that? Other than to call it out for what it is - an unsubstantiated brainfart.
How's that "You just got served" taste now? - scottknick, on 04/06/2009, -2/+19You miss the point. The Republicans are threatening to filibuster judicial nominations explicitly because they want to keep Bush's war crimes hidden. I am not accusing them (here) of obstructing Obama; I am accusing them of obstructing Justice.
- Aero347, on 04/06/2009, -10/+27Gosh darn you JCred! I thought we told you to get off dat der internats and get sum supper cookin'. These pigs aren gonna feed themselves!
- Trifold, on 04/06/2009, -3/+19Actually I dugg him down because it sucked.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 04/06/2009, -11/+27Please, oh please, oh please Republicans -- use the Nuclear option.
Because, what would be the difference when you've been filibustering everything anyway? And perhaps you hope that the Democrats don't realize that the "nuclear option" is to end the rules supporting filibusters in the first place that benefits the MAJORITY party.
I'd love for the civility to end, because the Democrats keep acting like you have some say in the matter. Some Democrats want to be Republicans, if only to get invited to the big corporate benefits. Many seem to have forgotten that you guys went for ultimate power and scrapped the Constitution -- I'm sick of these fools playing fair with the Washington mob. They bring flowers and a box of chocolates to a gun fight.
Seems that you have a good portion in America not paying attention to the fact, that the Republican party, has NEVER been for a bill that helped working Americans. Yet somehow, with three G issues, they've distracted many from that.
If the facts of more evidence of your moral repugnancy come forth --- what the hell do Republicans have left? They have been nothing but a pretense at some ideology for 50 years, but really, they are nothing but a scam to empower economic royalists. - pmkenny1234, on 04/06/2009, -1/+16I generally lean far left and all that jazz, but the idea of the Democrats having a filibuster-proof legislative branch, the executive branch and potentially the judicial at some point scares the ***** out of me. History tells us what happens when there is only one party calling the shots and it ain't all fairy tales and gum drops. =P
- TVarmy, on 04/06/2009, -0/+15We need more parties. It's too easy for sore losers to slow things down if they have over 40 heads in the senate. We could probably do with a progressive and a libertarian party, and they'd probably get good support if it weren't for lock in.
- mgraham80, on 04/06/2009, -3/+18I buried him down because his "joke" wasn't funny.
- PatrickBrown, on 04/06/2009, -3/+16@markgl
Heh, high and mighty?
I am pretty sure Dreeon hasn't instituted secret torture prisons while stating he doesn't torture.
What the ***** is wrong with you? -
Show 51 - 100 of 444 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is