dorbie

The point being made is that not all whites are from the Caucasus region, but we're still called caucasians. i.e. the name in itself becomes the abstract description of the appearance and not a literal definition of origin. Not my point......

I in no way took your remarks out of context or twisted your words if anything the context is even more indicting for the quote you responded to and the flip flop in the next post. We both know about the agreement, quit pretending to explain it, I mentioned it in my FIRST post to the last filibuster thread EVERYONE knows about the frigging agreement, you're not the only one. Edit, OK, my 3rd post; We know what a modern filibuster is but you have variously tried to say there was no filibuster or there was when it suited your purposes. Your comments have been directly contradictory. Cloture requires 60 votes. A judicial nomination constitutionally requires a simple majority vote. When you filibuster and insist on cloture you raise the bar from majority to 60. When an entire party in the minority does it systematically and by their own admission in non exceptional circumstances then you have a serious problem OR if the circumstances were exceptional then you have no agreement at all, just more of the same and we're back to square one.

Nice attempt to shift the argument. They are different, one guy filibustering and failing is far different from an entire party doing it, and committee representation depends on representation in congress & other agreements. You know to make these filibusters work it takes a whole party of support, it just takes one or two senators pushing you across the 60 line and it's history. Anyone can try a filibuster but it won't work without broad party support. Even a few senators on your own team can end it. And yu can filibuster with cross party support. If you are prepared to say everything is like everything else then you can say the past is just like the present no matter the circumstances. Yea it will get real circular whan you run around redefining the meaning of events. Back to the point, these were real filibusters, to filibuster and then misslead saying there were no filibusters is disgraceful. To filibuster when there are no "extreme circumstances" in the first place is disgraceful. It should tell anyone this system is broken. The valid argument is eliminating the filibuster, and doing it now so Senators can vote on issues brought before them. Filibustering in an extreme case might be appropriate but systematic repeated filibustering means that privilege has been abused beyond repair. You not seeing that argument doesn't mean it isn't being made.

Good luck with that.

Not necessarily. Did you read the followup article in Newsweek? The guards themselves reported some of these incidents and stated prisoners were doing it to agitate others. Why would they even bother reporting it? Moreover, if they find touching a Quran offensive, then tough shit. If one falls on the floor accidentally during a search, tough shit. That's what most of these complaints center around. Unadulterated bigotry by the prisoners towards their guards. Moreover the same article you cite says strict guidelines were in place in 2003 and the Red Cross states at best this bullshit is 2 years old. Sorry dude, but what more can people do, we have strict guidelines, a Quran for each islamofascist terrorist scumbag and a Red Cross happy since 2003. Show me the problem.

That has to be the most back handed compliment I've read around here. So now Bush is smart and because he's smart the accusations that the war must be entirely about economic benefit are true? Not exactly what you said but you said it and implied it supported those accusations. Bush may be principaled and doing this for other reasons. There are many reasons not all of them economic to go to war, and when the left swings from this war is about economics that benefit the USA to this war is an economic disaster then you know they're struggling for stable footing. Credibility is in the eye of the beholder.

Bill you can't have it both ways. Aside from going back to a period of history I wasn't referring to. These were filibusters, you've said so yourself and flip flopped on alternating posts in another thread because it suited you. They were filibusters, they blocked Senate votes according to an agreement that avoids senators daipering up. Its one of the left's lies designed to cloud this issue. But don't take my word for it, here's what you wrote yesterday. So please no more rubbish that these weren't filibusters, we both know that's a crock.

I'd liked to have seen that video. Sounds like it may have been Tora Bora. You sound conflicted, you want to cite it but you're reluctant to admit that any part of it is true for example OBL being there. He was in Tora Bora. I have no problem carpet bombing some mountain area where OBL & his cohorts are hiding, but it doesn't seem like an effective tactic with caves there. The Pentagon denies carpet bombing civilians there, but that's meaningless to you, you're only interested in making the accusation. You only need to be discriminate when there is something you must discriminate against hitting.

I don't buy the left's lie that this is business as usual. When the filibuster is routinely abused the Senate is undermined. These absolutely were real vote blocking moves in the Senate, real filibusters not merely threats thanks to the earlier "gentleman's" agreement.

Oh I feel so relieved now that they've joined the North Korea club of non proliferation pledgers. We can officially rest easy. Move along folks there's nothing to see. You there, move along!

I doubt you know enough to recognize carpet bombing if you saw it, it would be a sustained and prolonged effort rolling over a LARGE area and I've only I seen some images of the aftermath from Gulf War I. Whenever it's been used it's been on troop and armor concentrations in the middle of nowhere and away from our troops and cameras. To my knowledge the only thing similar we're using and that you've probably seen is longstick, and it's a carefully targeted single load of munitions from a single bomber and it's NOTHING like carpet bombing. The airheads on the news called it carpet bombing but it isn't. Carped bombing is indescriminate if there's something there you want to descriminate against hitting you just don't use it. It is absolutely appropriate to bomb the shit out of our enemies when we find them in concentrations and your speculation of who or what MIGHT have been under those bombs when they hit enemy troop concentrations is irrelevant. It's quite disgraceful the way people abuse these emotive terms and imply indescriminate bombing on the part of the allies. It just ain't done. You should save your displeasure for the enemies that hide in civilian clothes, hide in civilian areas, bomb civilians and attack our troops after disguising themselves as civilians. Those are the guys that really put civilians at risk.

That's the best kind of sarcasm.

A new truce.... interesting, what truce? We're actually relying on a handful of swing candidates to stick to their commitments. In one sense it has nothing to do with politics in the large. If the handful of Democrats inapropriately decide someone is extreme or if the handful of republicans decide to vote down the filibuster the agreement is broken. Guess which one absolutely has to happen first? The issue is the definition of extreme cases, a judgement they should have been exercising all along. We have 7 nominees not getting a vote when they should and the Dems in the process tacitly admit they've been abusing the filibuster. Either that, or all those cases were all extreme by their view and we're back to square one. In the midst of this we're supposed to believe that 3 blocked nominees getting a vote is a gift, when in fact it should have been a right. How could the Republicans possibly be seen to break this truce as you say they will? Presumably the President will use his executive powers to nominate judges without asking permission. i.e. do exactly what he's supposed to be doing. If the filibuster survives this administration then the escallation is inevitable, the precedent has now been set. You can't have a different set of nomination rules depending on who is in power.

McCain interview by Chris Mathews;

See attached.

The whole brain download idea is an old sci-fi one. Nothing demonstrates that it can actually be done or that even if a scan & simulation were attempted that it would behave like a real brain. Read "The Emperor's New Mind" by Roger Penrose. You'll see there may be quite a bit more to simulating a brain than pulling an idea out your ass or even borrowing someone else's old idea as Ian Pearson "futurologist" and Sony shill seems to have done.

LOL, exactly, well said.

This is the trouble you can get in when you have so much plastic surgery that humans can't read the expression on your face; http://cbsnewyork.com/topstories/local_story_145094335.html Seriously though these bozos are making a big deal out of a playful joke. The bleeping is overdone as well, reminds me of another Burt movie where scummy media bleeped a sound track to make it seem worse.

Dean effectively said he just DID get his way. shouldn't you be worried?

http://slate.msn.com/id/2119392/

Not me, this guy; http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/05/22/INGUNCQHKJ1.DTL He makes some good points.

I'd have to ignore a lot of action to arrive at any other conclusion, time will tell though. As for history, precedent hardly matters, despite the rhetoric what has gone before has not been a template for DNC behavior.

Any supreme court nominee will certainly equal an extreme case for a Democrat irrespective of who retires or who is nominated, and I expect there will be others before then, we'll be back to square one. Ask a Democrat if a specific candidate is an extreme case and they won't give you a yes or no answer, this happened over the weekend, so this commitment is bogus. It's a power grab and a successful one, kudos to the Democrats they got away with it.

You: Me: You: I would get better from a goldfish if I were to try. It does make me wonder what you were thinking when you posted the first part though?

It's called bouncing for a reason.