U.S. politics 23

[The Iceman of the North]

So...like...sending troops and predator drones into Pakistan, or bombers into Yemen?

What countries have Obama bombed that Dubya didn't bomb? Pakistan have been a target for years, while the reports about Yemen are from rather untrustworthy sources.

[Peter Irving]

when has Obama bombed Yemen? Now I know bush did it, hell I still remember when we killed that guy in yemen.

[sologdin]

To pretend otherwise is just for show, and to believe this charade is nothing short of willful blindness.

the amazing thing is i still hear real people honestly talk about their fear of obamite death panels. WTF?

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

You're conflating peace with pacifism.

Use of force is a means of achieving peace.

Didn't we already have peace with Pakistan and Yemen? What peace is being acheived by introducing war where it didn't exist before?

[Peter Irving]

Once again when did Obama bomb Yemen?

Oh and if an enemy is in a contry who wants to kill you you wouldn't try to remove that threat to you? Or is this because the big bad GOVERMENT is doing it?

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Once again when did Obama bomb Yemen?

Last week

Oh and if an enemy is in a contry who wants to kill you you wouldn't try to remove that threat to you? Or is this because the big bad GOVERMENT is doing it?

So do you consider the invasion and occupation of Iraq justified? Afghanistan?

[Hereward]

Last week

You show a lot more faith in the objectivity and accuracy of Iran's international TV station than most*, I'll give you that.

*By which I mean "anyone other than George Galloway".

[Peter Irving]

Afghanistan yes or shouldn't we respond when someone murders 3000 of our people unless of course the goverment did WTC. Or let me guess you think Ron Paul had it right with using 18th century solutions with that bullshit about letters of Marque.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

You show a lot more faith in the objectivity and accuracy of Iran's international TV station than most*, I'll give you that.

*By which I mean "anyone other than George Galloway".

When a headline essentially reads "US Air Force used to kill muslims in sandy country most Americans couldn't find on a map" my standard of proof is pretty low I will admit. They've been doing it since before I was born pretty regular.

Afghanistan yes or shouldn't we respond when someone murders 3000 of our people unless of course the goverment did WTC. Or let me guess you think Ron Paul had it right with using 18th century solutions with that bullshit about letters of Marque.

So what's the standard for starting a war then? If somebody kills one guy and goes to Namibia should we invade? 10 people? Do uou believe that the deaths of far, far more than 3000 Afghans have put paid to the blood debt you think they owe us because a murderer happened to live within a few hundred miles of them? And what about Iraq? There was an enemy there who had expressed a desire to kill some Americans. And how many Americans have been killed by Yemeni?

[Hereward]

When a headline essentially reads "US Air Force used to kill muslims in sandy country most Americans couldn't find on a map" my standard of proof is pretty low I will admit. They've been doing it since before I was born pretty regular.

That may be so, and they may indeed be bombing the crap out of Yemen, but we should still ask ourselves how the Iranians have got close enough to the "fighter jets" to tell the difference between them and the identical Saudi fighter jets which the Iranian article admits are also bombing the crap out of Yemen.

[Peter Irving]

Let me see here a goverment knowingly harboring a terrorist group refuses to hand over that terrorist group after that terrorist group went and murdered three thousand people using air planes as missles. You know I think I found my justification for war right there. UNless of course doing all that should just be rewareded with hugs and kisses Tormund.

If you noticed I never said I supported the iraq war in fact I believe the USA should withdraw its soldiers and Yemen can go to hell.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Let me see here a goverment knowingly harboring a terrorist group refuses to hand over that terrorist group after that terrorist group went and murdered three thousand people using air planes as missles. You know I think I found my justification for war right there. UNless of course doing all that should just be rewareded with hugs and kisses Tormund.

If you noticed I never said I supported the iraq war in fact I believe the USA should withdraw its soldiers and Yemen can go to hell.

Ah, good to see President Bush. We had wondered where you've been the last year.

[lokisnow]

My brother forwarded me this email, because you know, it's wrong that there are public expectations "preventing" us from calling a nigger a nigger:

Sometimes you are encouraged about our country's future when you see something like this.

Specifically, there is an annual contest at Texas A&M University calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term.

This year's term was

"Political Correctness."

The winner wrote:

"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

(This guy has nailed it.)

[TerraPrime]

My brother forwarded me this email, because you know, it's wrong that there are public expectations "preventing" us from calling a nigger a nigger:

Dude. It's Texas A&M. Have you been there?

[generic]

Let me see here a goverment knowingly harboring a terrorist group refuses to hand over that terrorist group after that terrorist group went and murdered three thousand people using air planes as missles. You know I think I found my justification for war right there.

That's basically the position of the Central powers in WW1. You can start paying back the reparations at your convenience.

[Shryke]

You are forgetting that once the Senate passes something, it goes to Conference Committee where the real bill is made.

[Shryke]

Are you anticipating a major chance for things to fall apart at that stage?

Not sure. The thing is, AFAIK, once it comes out of Conference, there's only 2 votes on it. Cloture and Passage. Hence, you can't CHANGE it any more. You can only vote Yes or No on the bill you are given.

That COULD give them a little leverage in getting people on board.

I'm sure they'll try to bring back as much as they think they can get through the Senate. But that may not be much.

We'll see.

[Shryke]

The other thing I'm not 100% on is whether 60 means anything after tomorrow. If Nelson comes on board and there are 60 votes tomorrow does that mean that they only need 51 on the final vote or will it still be 60?

Still 60.

The way it works is there are 2 votes:

Cloture: This is the vote to end debate on the bill and ... actually vote on it. This is the vote that says "Shut the fuck up. We aren't talking about this bill anymore, it's time to vote".

Passage: This is the actual vote to pass the bill.

Now, the thing is that a Cloture vote only needs to be invoked if debate doesn't end naturally. This is the POINT of the filibuster. The Filibuster is refusing to stop talking about the bill to try and keep it from ever being voted on. Of course, these days it's only threatening to do that because previous Senate Leaders were morons.

Passage only requires 51 votes. However, Cloture requires 60 votes.

So yes, you need 60 votes.

PS - This, btw, is where some deal cutting was being made with Blue Dog type Democrats. They told them "You must vote for Cloture, but you can vote against passage, cause we don't need your votes then". This allows them to save face by being able to say "Yes, I voted against the bill".

[Shryke]

This is why it's so maddening that Nelson and Lieberman are acting the way that they are.

That's because Nelson and Lieberman don't give a shit about saving face.

Fuck, Lieberman campaigned AGAINST his own party's candidate.

Because the Republicans will not vote for the bill no matter what, shopping around for that 60th vote has become a monopoly situation. It's Lieberman or no one.

Which means Lieberman is INCREDIBLY powerful. And he knows it. And he's exactly the type of guy to take advantage of that situation. Out of ego, out of spite, out of whatever. He likes the attention and he's gonna milk this situation for all it's worth.

[The Marquis de Leech]

You are forgetting that once the Senate passes something, it goes to Conference Committee where the real bill is made.

It may not go to Conference. If Pelosi agrees, they can invoke the so-called ping-pong scenario, where they skip conference and just let the House vote on the Senate Bill. It depends on how much arm-twisting the White House is prepared to do on Pelosi.