Crap Throwing Monkey

No, the fillibuster is entirely intended to block action. Else, why would they do such meaningless crap as reading the entire phone book into the Congressional Record (which has been done in fillibusters before, when they were true fillibusters.)

That's what the current majority party wants to change. I'm willing to see it changed, because as it stands now it's a gentleman's agreement: the fillibuster as it stands today is not a fillibuster, it's the minority party saying "We fillibuster" and the majority saying "Well...okay..." A true fillibuster is when a speaker is recognized by the chair, and speaks as long as he can to hold the floor. By the code of conduct in the Senate (and virtually any organized meeting), you don't interrupt who has the floor, you let him speak until he's done then asked to be recognize. By monopolizing the floor, the fillibuster effectively blocks any other action while it goes on. And unless the current majority party also wants to rewrite the rules of etiquitte that dictate whoever's speaking may do so uninterrupted (and I doubt they do, as THAT will hurt them even more than it will the minority party)...this "nuclear option" doesn't represent overturning the fillibuster itself. It removes the stupid "virtual" fillibuster that I outlined. The minority senators can still be recognized, take the floor, speak until the drop from exhaustion, and block action that way. What they're really complaining about is that the "nuclear option" might actually force them to WORK for a living by removing their ability to declare a fillibuster, then go back to their offices and kick back a few drinks.

It's not the acting that's bad. One consistent feature of Lucas' films is that his direction sucks. I mean, Ewan McGregor's a pretty good actor, as is Samuel L. Jackson...but when they get outperformed by an animated garbage can, a mystical frog with odd speech patterns, and a tall man covered entirely in dog pelts, the problem's probably behind the camera rather than in front of it. And even as bad as some of the acting is...it in NO WAY approaches the thespian atrocity of Mark Hamil's performance in Return of the Jedi.

Basically, it allows the majority party in the Senate to vote to stop a fillibuster. Personally, I'm all for it, as I think the "virtual fillibuster" nonsense they use today is crap. The "nuclear option" might very well get them away from this silly "fillibuster by saying 'I fillibuster'" option, and force them to resort to REAL fillibusters: taking the floor and holding it for as long as you can speak so that nothing else gets done. Let 'em go back to reading from the phone book again.

The Democrats. Although I'm not even remotely a fan of the Republicans either, at least they don't make up silly bull sh-- rules like the one that dictates I can no longer refer to my "master" and "slave" hard drives as such because it's racist...

And you call ME a pencil-necked geek? People who live in glass houses, you know...

Way to paint - again with a broad brush there. I'm sure this one backwoods church in Louisana is representative of the entirety of the Christian South. Is there anything you don't over-generalize to the point of brain-damaged absurdity?

Even NEWSWEEK admitted the report was questionable and backed up by no evidence other than one statement by one anonymous source. If you have other evidence...you should share it with Newsweek. I'm sure they'd be happy to be vindicated.

I guess it would technically be narcissism.

Not to change the subject...but presuming Michael Jackson's convicted, when his conviction gets thrown out on appeal on precisely this issue, people will be better served remembering that the prosecution knowingly did this against precedent rather than blame the appellate court.

It used to be their regular MO in Virginia: go into the bars, identify the drunks, and if they (the police) were in a generous mood they'd wait in the parking lot and bust you for DWI as you went to your car. If they were pissy that night, they'd check the drunks for car keys, and arrest them in the bar for DWI. There was a huge flap over it - and rightfully so, as legally (and by any remotely sane and rational measure) you can't be arrested for DWI if you're not behind the wheel - so I don't know if they still work that way anymore. But it was a nice example of horribly stupid law enforcement...I mean, at least wait out in the street for the drunks to pull out of the parking lot; then the case doesn't get thrown out of court because you ignored the fact that "driving while intoxicated" requires actual driving.

I don't even think that matters. Even if you were to stipulate that a course of action is "harmful"...that doesn't mean it's unconstitutional. Not even remotely. Even beyond the discussion of what is and isn't harmful, Bluefire's invocation of the founding fathers' intent doesn't hold water on that point.

What does "checks and balances" have to do with "harmful to the country"? The Constitution was meant to insure as much as possible that the duly elected representatives of the people act as representative of the electorate considered on a state-by-state basis. If the electorate chooses to give to one group of mouth-breathing Pez-heads control of the government...the Constitution allows for it. It makes it difficult, to be sure, but it does allow for it. "Harmful" doesn't even begin to enter into consideration.

Actually, given that they didn't write anything in to the Constitution to insure otherwise when a single party controls the executive and legislative branches, I'd argue it's precisely what they intended.

I wish these ignorant !@#$ers who swear an oath to protect the Constitution had read it as closely as some of us here have...

You might be right - I honestly don't know. Nor, frankly, do I care enough to check. Congress is at its most productive when its prevented from doing anything. And for the most part we're talking about professional politicians here. They're never shortsighted...

Even if it is factual (probably is, Coulter's usually careful about that), it's probably not truthful (as Coulter's also very careful to express factuals in ways that support her long-standing agenda). I don't even have to read it to figure that out, I just have to know it's Ann Coulter.

IF they do manage to change the rules regarding fillibusters, you all know what the next step is, right? If they can't block action by monopolizing the floor..then the Democrats walk out of the Senate en masse so as to preclude the establishment of a quorum, and block action that way. And won't THAT resulting mess be fun to watch...

...if one conveniently ignores a couple hundred years of precedent.

One page of notes for every seven of text? I've got books here that go well beyond that. Just picked up one in front of me, a study of the Red Army's mobilization in 1941-1943...one page of end notes for every six of text. Just pulled another off the bookshelf - Laurie Garrett, Betrayal of Trust - has one page of notes for every four of text. Just randomly picked out another: a study of air power in Gulf War I Act I, 300 pages of text, 65 of end notes. A study of WWII air ops in the North Sea: 280 pages, 65 of end notes. 35 pages of notes for 250 of text isn't all that much. The difference being, of course, that the books I referenced are deep scholarly works. Not written by Ann Coulter.

Well...the Catholic Church is also against premarital sex, so banning the girl from graduation is consistent with that. Of course, then they should also ban the father...so that reasoning merely shifts the hypocrisy from the "abortion" argument to the "gender equality" argument... I would point out, though, that blzrul chose NOT to use this as an example of the church's hypocritical stance, as you so astutely did. Rather, she chose to use it as a blanket condemnation of "conservatism" and "red states"...which makes RkFast's stupidity if not excusable, than at least not improper in view of blzrul establishing the "stupidity" precedent.

When he lost Ben Coates as an outlet over the middle.

Eventually, lost-tv.com will have a transcript of the episode up (if they don't already, I haven't checked). You can get the text there.

Thus, my " Incredible..."

Oh, please share your wisdom...what mistakes would these be?