Posted on 05/24/2005 6:55:47 AM PDT by AliVeritas
Only if the Dems operate within the spirit of the deal. If not, they are not so bound.
The end all beat all, bottom line? Senators can do pretty much what they want as individuals, which is why this whole "deal" simply stopped the clock, and broke a bit of a log jam. If the donks filibuster, than Graham and Warner will vote for the nuke. Why? Well, I think out of the group of 7 they were the only two acting out of any principle at all. Not that I agree with the idea that "comity" in the senate trumps the constitution, but at least graham and warner are on the record for voting for the Nuke option. The dems filibuster at their own peril.
And see this as well
"So a deal has been struck on the filibuster. Republicans will allow Democrats to keep the filibuster as long as Democrats never use it. This way, both sides win (except for the Democrats).
Is it true that both sides win (except the Democrats)? If so, Lindsey Graham will look like a genius instead of the fool that he has appeared to be in the past week or so. It's still too early to tell. Let's see what happens with Myers, Saad, Kavanaugh, and Haynes'
Don't worry about my ego, I long since stopped caring.
and don't talk about things you really ( and I mean REALLY!) know about.
I presume you meant things I didn't know about. In this case I have read the constitution, and the agreement, and I have listened to hours of discussion by the participants in the agreement and political and legal pundits. I have then applied my own reasoning to that input, and rendered an opinion.
I never said I was an expert. But to eliminate any confusion: I am not an expert in constitutional law. I am not a lawyer, nor do I work in the legal profession. My views on the constitution are based on my ability to read and comprehend english.
Nice thing about FR: Anybody can go look at everything I have written here since I joined, and decide for themselves whether my reasoning seems to be grounded in fact, or is simply loopy.
I could be wrong about my opinion in this matter. I am stubborn enough that I won't change my position simply because others tell me that Mark Levin says different. I could be persuaded by a cogent argument as to what in this agreement is unconstitutional. That would also I think be more useful to the group then simply stating that "Mark Levin Said So".
I've never been one to accept arguments by authority. Even when the Doctor tells me something, I ask for an explanation, and do my own research.
I never called you arrogant; your far worse than that. You're a supercilious prig, verbose, and an egotist.
I am egotistical. I also am overly verbose. I rarely use 50 words when 100 will do :->
However, I reject the label "supercilious prig", and in my non-expert opinion anybody who knows what those words mean would not apply them to me in this exchange.
supercilious: Feeling or showing haughty disdain
prig: A person who demonstrates an exaggerated conformity or propriety, especially in an irritatingly arrogant or smug manner.
I've already said what I think about "spirit". What are these Continuing Commitments, other than the no filibuster except in extraordinary circumstances contained in II-A?
They will be the LEAST powerful coalition on the hill; behind the Black Caucas, the Hispanic Caucas and any other caucas.
Conservatives have lost big, but McCain and Graham have lost bigger. There is a God.
As to your ego.......you care.......YOU REALLY CARE, no matter what you claim to the contrary. LOL
You most assuredly come off as being supercilious!
As re "prig" you needed to dig deeper into the meaning of the word. It also means : fussiness about trivialities, exaggerated propriety, esp. in a self-rightious/irritating manner.This shoe also fits you. It's your posting tone of voice.
When someone here tells you that they aren't a "SIR", it's to alert you that they are not a male; not that they don't deserve such a title/politeness. CALL ME MADAME !
I provided insufficient information to allow you to come to a conclusion about the scope of my expertise in the topic I was discussing with a surgeon. I meant the reference to be self-effacing, to acknowledge that I do hold myself in high regard. I wouldn't write anything I didn't THINK was correct, and I wouldn't hold a position if I didn't THINK it was supportable by the facts.
As to ego, I can't see getting an ego trip out of internet discussion groups. We aren't curing cancer here. And I'm too old to get worked up about what people think about me.
Regarding the current discussion, feel free to check out my local opinion column. Or don't, doesn't matter to me. I thank everybody who participated here, it always helps me to read so many good arguments. Anyway, if anybody is interested here is a link to my column: Threat of nuclear option brought Democrats to the table
BTW, it is not only NOT "good form", but NOT allowed for you to pimp your column on a thread.
That too, would be an acknowledgment of respect, something you have gone out of your way to exclude from others simply because they disagreed with you. You seem to have two great talents, heaping praise on the ditto crowd, or heaping scorn and insults on those who would take a position contrary to yours. But take comfort in the knowledge that there are many of you here on Free Republic. The Terri Schiavo lunacy proved that. It seems to reflect a slow devolution of the intellectualism once a very prominent feature here on FR, but unfortunately seems to also be spreading well into my Party.
So enjoy the comfort zone of your ditto buddies. Hopefully they can hold your ego together.
If there is a more detailed set of rules for posting here that expands on the registration agreement, would someone please e-mail me a link? I searched for a while but found nothing.
I want this to be CLEAR. I sent an abuse report on MY post, not the post I referenced in the referenced post.
To make this clear, I sent an abuse report on post 2588 asking for clarification about posting a link to an article I wrote. I did NOT send an abuse report on post 2589 which pointed out the possible violation.
Sorry about the extra posting, but given the circumstance I needed to clarify the ambiguity in post #2591.
Nor am I aware of any such rule. There is a rule, however against personal attacks which one poster here might well review. It appears to be the extent of her intellectual arsenal.
I read your column and found it well thought out and well written. It expressed what a number of us here have, hope that a crisis could be averted and the true business of the Senate reinvigorated. It may not work, but it was worth trying.
For someone who is making spurious remarks about me and others, the posts you're making, complaining about me and them, makes you a hypocrite of the highest order.
There are many rules on FR, inside jokes/slang, and such, which are written someplace...just not all in one place. Many of these riles have had their own threads, posted by Jim Robinson and/or the Mods.
Just as there are threads dedicated to HTML, these other threads are in the archives here. I know, it can be confusing to newbies, which is why old timers point out these things, when there are infractions.
And FWIW I didn't hit abuse on you; not for any reason.
Which remarks about you are spurious? And I'm a hypocite because I don't care for offensive attacks? Best you check out who attacked whom and then you may begin to understand my response.
I suppose old age does bring on massive memory losses. To remind you, see post 2500 where you verbally attacked me simply because you didn't care for my position on the subject of the thread.
So please refrain from accusing me of hi-jacking the thread for personal attacks on you. I assume you can safely find your way back to post no. 2500.
I've looked back on the last few days of your posts, and you are one of the most pathetic, mean spirited and abusive people I have run into on this board. I gave up counting how many times you insulted people just for the fun of insulting. You have absolutely no capacity for intellectual discourse. You either ditto a poster who says what you like, or heap invectives on those whose posts fail to meet your approval. Your most recent abuse on a new poster for absolutely no reason other than his position on the compromise was absolutely disgusting. And then you had the audacity to tell him that he broke the rules by sharing his op-ed with Freepers, something that for years we have congratulated folks for.
If the rest of the Freepers want to let your opprobrious taunts and abuses go by, fine. But as for me, I won't!
Now go ahead and hit the abuse button, but if the mods decide to let me stay, please keep away from any posts to me and I will certainly do the same for you.
tsk, tsk, tsk....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.