According to the column, by Arthur C. Brooks, the president of the American Enterprise Institute:
Many conservatives favor an explanation focusing on lifestyle differences, such as marriage and faith. They note that most conservatives are married; most liberals are not....
The story on religion is much the same. According to the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey, conservatives who practice a faith outnumber religious liberals in America nearly four to one....
An explanation for the happiness gap more congenial to liberals is that conservatives are simply inattentive to the misery of others. If they recognized the injustice in the world, they wouldn’t be so cheerful....
People at the extremes are happier than political moderates. Correcting for income, education, age, race, family situation and religion, the happiest Americans are those who say they are either “extremely conservative” (48 percent very happy) or “extremely liberal” (35 percent). Everyone else is less happy, with the nadir at dead-center “moderate” (26 percent).
What explains this odd pattern? One possibility is that extremists have the whole world figured out, and sorted into good guys and bad guys. They have the security of knowing what’s wrong, and whom to fight. They are the happy warriors.
Posts
403 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 403 Newer› Newest»I am absolutely roiled to bits from time to time about the cruelty people sometimes inflict on each other.
I don't stay there, though. I have a family, things to do and bills to pay. When the opportunity comes to contribute in a positive way, I will, but in the meantime I contribute by not adding to the misery.
I am utterly and decidedly not religious. I appreciate the roots and principles of Judeo-Christianity in which my culture is steeped and am grateful for that, but at the personal level I am done with it. Christ and Christians alike can all go their own ways without me. If, in the end, for better or worse, some of us end up in a similar place, so be it!
There is definitely something 'god like' in my life, though, so I won't call myself an Atheist.
For me, each of us is a religion of one, anyways, even if we think otherwise. You can rub shoulders and sing along with as many others as you wish, but it's still just You inside.
What each of us sees in that sort of thing, be it a spiritual religion or a political one, can only be a reflection of what's already within us.
How comfortable we are with what we see has everything to do with our general level of Happiness..
the Lefties want everybody to do it their way
That's my experience in social settings and day to day life. Lefties constantly look for what's wrong in other people. They interpret every word and action in the most negative way possible - that's racist/sexist/homophobic/etc.
Often they make accusatory remarks and pressure others to conform to their demands. They come across as intolerant jeks and few like them, which adds to their self imposed misery.
Carrie, agree. One of the most left wing guys I know when it comes to politics, is a rather happy family guy.
You'd think he was a Morman Republican with the amt of time he spends with his wife and kid.
Considering Reagan raised taxes more than pretty much every post-war president, does that make him a liberal?
Considering this is an utter fabrication, no.
Hatboy must have spent last night solving the plight of those prisoners and TB patients. We can only wonder what speed compassion projects are on the agenda today. Yesterday he helped downtrodden Negroes. Today could it be Hispanics, Indians, midgets? Stay tuned.
I've been told Hatboy's favorite song is the old Liberal Spititual, "Nobody Knows the Trouble I've Seen."
If it weren't for captcha, I would have won. Effing regulations!
You're no. 200? Isn't there a prize for that? Should be. Maybe like free commenting for a month.
Minzo said...
Jesus....radical gay movement who picked a fight with the rest of America? That's really how you see things? If they weren't denied such fundamental rights, do you think they would be 'picking a fight
Except they're not being "denied fundamental rights" anywhere, at all.
Further, note you can't refute the assertion that they picked the fight.
You're just trying to excuse it.
And then tossing in Nazi holocaust references in a debate about gay rights.....words fail me.
Of course they do. You're silly & illogical, so you can't address the logical extension of your logic at work.
The drug liberalization movement gaining traction mainly on the right is not something I buy.
Of course you don't.
Modern leftists is comprised of nothing but lies one tells oneself for comfort.
Timothy said...
Conservatives worry about who should love who, who should benefit from marriage rights, who should control a woman's body, who worships the right (or any) God. Who should be bombed. Who should not eat, who should not be allowed health care, what language their neighbors should speak... Shall I go on?
NO.
You've made a complete and utter fool of yourself.
You can stop now.
Love how Jay comes into a "conservatives are more happy" thread, and pretty much proving the entire thesis wrong.
Hey!! Something got inserted, and now Allie is #200. I demand a recount!
HAHAHAHA! Dancin' on the table, am I not the top liberal or what?!
garage mahal said...
Love how Jay comes into a "conservatives are more happy" thread, and pretty much proving the entire thesis wrong.
Ridiculing and mocking you stupids is quite fun, actually.
You're the captain of the "f bomb" and threaten everyone with your W-2.
Loser.
"Top Liberal" is like being "Best Tic Tac Toe Player."
That's weird. I showed Garage as number 200, now it shows Bob Ellison.
Naw, it's showing me as #200. I think Meade is playing with our heads.
Patrick, Eric Holder is afoot! Something's up! The Professor must investigate!
"God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.
DBQ, didn't have time to get through all of the responses this morning but this is the first thing I thought of. If you tried to care about every individual in the world who is suffering or making bad choices or hurt or everything in your life that isn't perfect, you could not function. You pick a few things you care about, do your best to fix them or donate funds to help out, and then move on.
Thank you Shanna. I believe that living by this philosophy is also why conservatives (and yes....even some liberals in the old sense of liberalism) have more successful marriages.
Pick what is important to you and what things you can change or should just live with. Decide what is important. Instead of trying to re-make each other into your image of what should be, accept each other for the good things and help each other with the serious stuff.
This is where conservatism and progressive/liberalism part ways. They want to force everyone to conform to THEIR viewpoints with no attempt to understand or accept that there may be differences in opinion.
Yeah, Meade is probably back there doing some weird mad scientist sort of thing with the comments.
I demand that by the earlier count when I got #200, and by the current one (as I type) I got #201, that my comment(s) be selected as the 200th. You will hear arguments from 199 and 202, but my arguments are better.
Love how Jay comes into a "conservatives are more happy" thread, and pretty much proving the entire thesis wrong.
Then garage mahal makes an insulting comment, complete with sarcastic use of "love", in a "liberals are less happy" thread, thus proving the entire thesis is 100% correct.
As does all the whining, anger, sarcasm, and petulance from shiloh, leslyn, Andy R., Minzo, Ender's Ghost, et al...
I'm sorry you are all so unhappy, but destroying the US socio-economic system will not make you any happier.
Seriously.
Sore loser!
I thank all the hard working hit counters for choosing me, I accept my prize for 200th commenter, I also thank the Academy of Bloggers for making this all possible!
machine said...
It's true. "Conservatives" are happier...
If they can be happy while sabotaging the U.S. economy simply to win elections, then they have no soul to interfere with their happiness...
As we've noted, the Lefties got everything they wanted for 2 years, and now they're reaping the dividends. Nobody has to sabotage anything. It was done with an, "I won".
It's interesting to hear all the maroons get so angry and show their true colors. All that hatred.
Of course, Conservatives are happy. they don't spend every waking hour hating.
Conservative, Edutcher = YES, we are happier than you, I only appear perpetually angry and paranoid, now get off my lawn before I shoot your liberal ass!
Oops, forgot to add, "TROLL!".
Next stop: 400!
Althouse, don't you ever get tired of inane generalizations from your conservative lemmings in these silly/useless who's happier, conservatives or liberals? threads.
Rhetorical.
On the bright side, threads over 200 posts make Althouse extremely happy lol. Her bottom line.
And good to see your #1 sycophant, edutcher, is still tagging along. Talk about a lost pup!
Death, taxes, edutcher licking Althouse's behind. Kinda reassuring lol.
Yeah, his fans kick his ass.
And we haven't seen any more of those polls from years gone by showing us how well the Demos are going to do.
As I say, the Demos are getting desperate if they need bathtub swabbie and his non sequiturs.
"Minzo said...
"For example, the Left believes that you are ultimately the property of the state."
You can't be serious. Even the most die-hard take-no-prisoners-hate-every-conservative liberal doesn't believe this."
In fairness, the most hardened "liberal" does not believe this. The problem is that their plans are indistinguishable from what they would be if they did believe it.
edutcher is a perfect example of the conservative incoherent jibberish mentioned earlier.
Did you miss me, little buddy? Again, rhetorical.
Not to worry, as Althouse loves 'ya regardless. :) She must have a soft spot for totally devoted conservative fools.
Given the rates of divorce amongst the rich, and the clinging to material gains, which prove to be empty, for both the conservative and liberal, I suspect these polls do not measure for the lie and denial factor which is ever present in life.
Conservatives are happy because they take pride in fulfilling their duties to their family, church and country whereas liberals feel like they are missing out on life if they they have to use their time and money to fulfill their duties to family (oops, they believe in free love and recreational sex so the family is spread out and not much of a support group), church (oops, they believe that there is no God) and country (oops, they don't owe the country anything so why would they feel any duty to country) so they try to compensate by showing compassion to people in lower economic classes (in a paternalistic, distant, impersonal way because they really don't want to know these people because they might learn that they are actually smarter and capable of doing more than they think), which is not fulfilling because they are really just throwing money at problems and aren't really improving anything. I do know some happy liberals who are working on the front lines of charities helping people on the margins of society but these liberals tend to be socially conservative and to be working in faith based social service organizations that believe in family, church and country and that everyone has the ability to learn to support themselves. I think that research overwhelmingly shows that being part of an intact family contributes greatly to happiness and to the success of children but the liberals . . .
carrie's paragraph structure notwithstanding, let the inane generalizations and incoherent conservative jibberish flourish and multiply!
The daily fuel which keeps Althouse's engine up and running.
The typical leftist response to, say, the alleged suffering in the jail, is not to actually do anything about the problem, but to put on a protest that others ought to do something about it. And they actually think that a protest is *doing something* when all it is is stroking their own ego.
Meanwhile, conservative religious charities such as Prison Fellowship have been actually doing something about prison conditions for decades.
Acts of compassion actually make us happier. Protesting just makes people angry and outraged--often because protesting is busywork, not actual action. Not that leftists don't do anything but protest, but they certainly don't in anything like the numbers that conservatives do.
shiloh, just like the inane generalizations and incoherent liberal jibberish has flourished and multiplied! I do apologize for my paragraph structure.
"If they recognized the injustice in the world, they wouldn’t be so cheerful."
They do recognize the injustice in the world, they are just grateful to live in a considerably just country.
It's like when people erroneously assume religious persons are in an idiotic state of bliss. There may be moments of joy, but trust me, I know a lot of Christians who are tortured souls.
FWIW, I don't consider myself conservative and am agnostic.
Erik, you can't conceive of notion that average liberals also volunteer a charities, prisons, hospitals, that they do more than just protest? Really? Is it all that black and white? Conservatives don't protest, what were all the Tea Party rallies?
You folks think you know what a typical liberal is.
Allie, it's not a question of "a typical liberal". Conservatives tend not to deal in identity politics that way.
It's a matter of the statistically average liberal, a non-existent person. That person is a little-educated, foolish, angry jerk who doesn't work at the soup kitchen, doesn't give to charity, and doesn't live up to his/her own ideals.
Erik, remember the contentious word is "typical".
If you're happy and you know it, clap your hands (clap clap).
It looks like nd may have taken over the shiloh sockpuppet.
It comes cheap, after all.
Of course, it takes no wit to be bathtub swabbie.
carrie, I apologize for my snark, but inane generalizations are the nature of the beast at political blogs, especially conservative blogs.
On the bright side, it makes it easier for liberals to leave said conservative blog. :)
ie repetition leads to diminishing returns ...
Erik, you can't conceive of notion that average liberals also volunteer a charities, prisons, hospitals, that they do more than just protest?
If you look at the data, conservatives volunteer more and give more to charities than liberals.
Liberal's life is Les Miserable without the great music to go along with it.
Abject poverty and the French Revolution can cause that.
But like the wearing of worn out jeans to create a working man's look and claiming to be a victim fighting for other victims, it is all a well known emotional crutch for youngsters.
"As we've noted, the Lefties got everything they wanted for 2 years...."
Oh? Did you note this in your dreams? It certainly has not happened in any recent historical reality.
Andy asks: "Now I'm curious about how "conservatives" respond to stories about people suffering."
Conservatives are MUCH more likley to reach in to their own wallets to help out suffering people than liberals.
Let's compare the charitable giving of the hated Southern Baptists to that of any similar sized liberal group and you'll see the difference between conservatives and liberals.
The Catalogue for Philanthropy has ranked the fifty states on their relative generosity, comparing each state's average itemized charitable deductions with its average adjusted gross income (based on 2002 IRS data).
The 'Redder' the state, the more generous its people are.
Liberals talk a good game, but don't ask them to actually spend their own money to help someone suffering.
conservatives are simply inattentive to the misery of others. If they recognized the injustice in the world, they wouldn’t be so cheerful....
Certainly nonsense in my case. Having travelled extensively and viewed real poverty it is very hard to feel much concern over iPad toting, $30K/yr spending, college students demonstrating for the "99%". Almost all Americans are in the top 10%. Go to Zambia if you want to see poverty.
shiloh, Thank you for your apology. I don't think that conservative blogs are any worse than liberal blogs when it comes to generalizations, but I guess it all depends upon your point of view. In fact, I think that gereralizations are part of the problem with getting anything done in this country and why I threw in the remark about liberals showing compassion in a paternalistic, distant, impersonal way---the elitist liberals (i.e., the politicians like Pelosi, John Kerry, etc.) seem to lump together all people from disadvantaged backgrounds into one group and then treat the people in this group as being people who need caretakers instead as being people who can become hard working, productive members of society. You need to know people on a personal level to see the potential in them and most of the liberals I know do not know any disadvantaged people on a personal level. As a result, most liberals that I know are afraid to make harsh judgments about disadvantaged people because that will make them sound uncaring. At least some of the leaders in the black community are starting to publicly make those harsh judgments.
Oh? Did you note this in your dreams? It certainly has not happened in any recent historical reality.
The first two years of Obama's presidency the Democrats controlled the Senate and House also. What did the do? Reminded us of the definition of FUBAR. That's why everything is going so well now, low unemployment, booming economy, less people on food stamps, lower college costs, ...
One half of married people are conservative. The other half are women. That's what leads to the 50% divorce rate. It's surprising it is not 100%.
"The "faith-gap" which I think you are referring to in religion has nothing to do with it. I doubt that either DBQ or I are referring to religion."
Actually, I take it as a given that any prayer that starts off with "God," pretty much has everything to do with it.
The fact it was written by a Christian theologian only clarifies the religious point.
Sorry if this distresses you, but I think it factually accurate, even if the prayer has been borrowed by others of little or no religious faith whatsoever.
But then, why as for God to grant anything?
Seems irrational, but what the hell.
The first two years of Obama's presidency the Democrats controlled the Senate and House also
The Zombie Lie that just won't die.
garage, can you say more about the "Zombie Lie that just won't die"?
You lie to say it's a lie. Or are you being clever in some silly liberal way?
The electorate is not, mostly, political junkies like us on these blogs. When you lie like that, you probably sway people. It's the liberal way.
Isn't honesty better?
garage, can you say more about the "Zombie Lie that just won't die"?
Yes, why does it have to be pointed out so often?
"The first two years of Obama's presidency the Democrats controlled the Senate and House also."
Please.
What makes you think this has anything to do with what "liberals" want?
Even assuming for sake of discussion the laughable inference that the Democrats are in any way representative of a "liberal" or "leftist" political opposition, what instances can you provide of the Democrats securing passage--with or without difficulty--of any sort of "liberal" or "leftist" policies?
The Dems are just Republicans in chic clothing, (not really chic...I just wanted to make the pun).
"Control" can be a funny word. The Dems had clear majorities in both houses until 2010. They only had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate for a few months between the time Sen. Franken took the oath and when Sen. Brown took the oath.
I should clarify: you made an implication, from which I drew an inference.
Either way...it is laughable.
"You folks think you know what a typical liberal is."
Indeed, we do.
They're the folks hectoring us at family get-together's and social events about global warming, increasing taxes on the rich, socializing medicine, building high speed rail systems, how Bush stole the election, how we need to quit Iraq, Afghanistan, stop our wars for oil, leave Iraq and North Korea alone, close GITMO, etc.
And, 30 years ago, these same people were hectoring us about how the slaughter of innocent Cambodians by the Khmer Rouge was Kissinger's fault, the energy crisis was something we deserved, how Carter was wrong to boycott the Moscow Olympics, the Iranians had a good point in taking the hostages, Reagan was a warmonger, nuclear freeze was the way to go, gas taxes need to go up, Reagan was provoking the Russians with Pershing II missiles in Europe and supporting the mujahadin in Afghanistan.
And before that, well, it was all over the evening news from '62 to '76.
What's somewhat shocking is that either you think we haven't been paying attention, or that somehow we were too dim to pick up on the hectoring harangues over the last 50 or so years.
Trust me - the "typical Liberal" consistently, reflexively, instinctually outs him or herself. There's no stealth or subtlety amongst that crowd, at all.
I guess I should have said through the 2010 election. The republican majority in the House didn't actually start until the term starting in 2011.
Actually Robert, it's not laughable. You seem to not realize that most people use the left vs. right scale and notice that the center, while it may shift from time to time, holds with most of the population. From the perspective of the center and the right, the Democrats are on the left. The fact that you personally may be to the left of most Democrats does not mean that they are not to the left.
Right, Patrick; now "control" is the problem. It's all linguistics here. Garage misstepped in countering DADvocate, and Robert Cook comes in to save him by re-defining the debate. Democrats aren't on the Left, because they don't have Robert Cook's secret decoder ring that defines leftism and liberalism.
Back in the day, leftists said communism was still a good idea, because real communism had never been tried-- not by Lenin, Stalin, Kruschev, Mao, Kim, or anyone else. Similarly, I say dirty underpants are still a good idea, because it's never really been tried, not by anyone with the sense to see it through.
Yes, why does it have to be pointed out so often?
garage, I'm going all Seven here, but let me help you out: explain how it's a lie. You know what a lie is, right? You just wrote one. Scroll up to find it.
The Zombie Lie that just won't die.
Classic stuff here.
Perhaps, garage, you have in mind some highly complex definition of party "control" that means something other than a large majority in both houses of Congress plus the presidency. If so, then feel free to enlighten us.
Otherwise, stop calling "lies" things that are simply facts that annoy you.
Garage misstepped in countering DADvocate, and Robert Cook comes in to save him by re-defining the debate
Nope, the claim was Dems had control in both chambers and POTUS for two years. It wasn't even close to two years. It resembles many Republican zombie lies, like "rampant voter fraud". The only question is always whether it's deliberate, or just stupidity.
Robert Cook wrote What makes you think this has anything to do with what "liberals" want?
No wonder they're all so unhappy.
The first two years of Obama's presidency the Democrats controlled the Senate and House also. What did the do?
In order to do almost anything in the Senate it requires 60 votes. The Democrats did not have 60 votes in the Senate during the first two years of Obama's presidency.
garage, can you count the months?
And Cook, we all know quite well by now that in your mind no one in US politics this side of Bernie Sanders qualifies as on the left, but that is simply a consequence of how far out of the mainstream you reside.
The ADA, which at least knows where it stands, gave Obama a "perfect" score of 100 during his Senate tenure. It also said on its website, With the election of Barack Obama, the moment to realize so many elements of that long-deferred [New Deal] dream has come....
But yeah, Obama's just another pea from the capitalist pod of puppets.
garage mahal said...
Nope, the claim was Dems had control in both chambers and POTUS for two years. It wasn't even close to two years.
Actually idiot, the Dems took control of Congress in Jan 2007.
Obama was sworn in Jan 2009.
Pelosi became minority leader Jan 2011.
You're incoherent.
Otherwise, stop calling "lies" things that are simply facts that annoy you.
Dems having control of the senate for two years ain't a fact. Google is your friend.
Andy, we know you're still smarting about Scott Brown's victory. But can you count? You might establish legitimacy with a post of your 3rd-grade report card. JPEG, please.
"Naw, it's showing me as #200. I think Meade is playing with our heads."
res ipsa loquitur
Andy R. said...
In order to do almost anything in the Senate it requires 60 votes. The Democrats did not have 60 votes in the Senate during the first two years of Obama's presidency.
And here comes even stupider.
Um, two time periods during the 111th Congress when the Democrats had a 60 seat majority:
From July 7. 2009 (when Al Franken was officially seated as the Senator from Minnesota after the last of Norm Coleman’s challenges came to an end) to August 25, 2009 (when Ted Kennedy died, although Kennedy’s illness had kept him from voting for several weeks before that date at least); and
From September 25, 2009 (when Paul Kirk was appointed to replace Kennedy) to February 4, 2010 (when Scott Brown took office after defeating Martha Coakley);
Carry on in your idiocy now.
garage, are you really trying to look stupid? I like the concept "drunk, high, or stupid". Are you one of these?
garage mahal said...
Dems having control of the senate for two years ain't a fact.
The Democrats still have control of the Senate, you effing idiot.
Which of course explains why the Majority Leader is a Democrat and so are all the Committee chairs.
Andy R noted: In order to do almost anything in the Senate it requires 60 votes. The Democrats did not have 60 votes in the Senate during the first two years of Obama's presidency.
It only takes more than 60 votes to do something extremist or out of step with the public--or to undo some Executive mandate which is likewise out-of-step. Had Obama not been such an extremist, he would have gotten somewhere.
Bob Ellison said...
garage, are you really trying to look stupid
He doesn't have to "try" he is stupid beyond belief.
Here is the info, just so you're all clear about what was going on:
On Christmas Eve of 2009, the Senate voted to move forward with the Health Care Reform bill by 60 to 39 votes. As Vice-President Biden noted, it was a big deal.
On February 4, 2010 Scott Brown was sworn in signaling the end of the super-majority.
Depending upon which metric is used, Democrats had a super majority for roughly six months which includes the seven weeks between Franken’s swearing-in on July 8 to Ted Kennedy’s death on August 25 and the four months and nine days between Paul Kirk’s swearing-in on September 25, 2009 to his replacement by Scott Brown on February 4, 2010. This was just barely enough time to pass the biggest and most difficult health care legislation in generations; an event that would likely never have happened under any other circumstances. This also happened under the onslaught of every procedural obstruction the Republicans could put in its path.
President Obama, against advice from many of his advisors, gambled his political capital on this bill and won. And it was a significant battle in what is sure to be a series of battles to come in order to keep the foothold on this particular beachhead. He put the brief super majority to good use and any argument that he squandered it will need to stand next to the impressive accomplishment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010.
So the Democrats didn't have a supermajority for the first two years of Obama's presidency, they had it for about six months.
Do we all agree on that?
@Andy R: In other words, Obama blew the quantity, not the quality of the zeitgeist.
garage mahal said...
Dems having control of the senate for two years ain't a fact. Google is your friend.
The Democrats have had control of the Senate for more than 5 years and counting you blathering idiot.
Dems having control of the senate for two years ain't a fact. Google is your friend.
Are you insane?
Or are you just spouting the latest idiocy you've read at HuffPo, as is your custom?
BTW, I do enjoy all the hindsight analysis of what Obama did. It hints that his administration is moving to the past tense.
Following the 2006 elections, the Democrats took the majority, 51-49. They have held the majority since.
Following the 2006 election, the Democrats also held the majority in the House.
After the 2008 election the Dems held both, and took the Presidency.
Garage's point is only accurate if by "control" you mean "filibuster proof." Lack of clarity on that issue should not be considered a lie.
So the Democrats didn't have a supermajority for the first two years of Obama's presidency, they had it for about six months.
Nobody said jack shit about a supermajority.
"Party control" of a house of Congress means a simple majority, which is what determines the Speakership and all committee chairmanships.
Did you really not know that?
Maybe you'd better stick with calling people bigots.
Andy, you need better sources. Hint: the weirder the URL, the less likely the truth.
"For example, the Left believes that you are ultimately the property of the state."
You can't be serious. Even the most die-hard take-no-prisoners-hate-every-conservative liberal doesn't believe this.
You are mistaken. Even the mainstream Left ultimately does not believe in the right to speak, to freely associate, to work, or to retain the output of your work. How is that different from being a slave of the state?
Half way there!
All Aboard!
garage, are you really trying to look stupid? I like the concept "drunk, high, or stupid". Are you one of these?
I'm immune to this horseshit, you can try and drag someone else off into the woods to debate something that isn't even debatable. Anyone with an internet connection can [or should be able to] easily verify Democrats didn't have control [filibuster proof in the senate] of three branches for 2 years.
It used to bother me when righties wouldn't acknowledge a fact, or just lie about a fact. It doesn't anymore. It just shows how little they have to work with.
So anyone who doesn't interpret "control" as filibuster proof control is lying?
that is beyond ridiculous.
"Party control" of a house of Congress means a simple majority, which is what determines the Speakership and all committee chairmanships.
Did you really not know that?
I didn't take part in any of the back and forth about "control". I popped in to note that if we're concerned about legislation, then having 60 votes in the Senate is a more important consideration than having 50 + VP or 51 votes. Obviously a minority party isn't going to be able to pass much legislation.
If you people want to discuss "control" and the ability to appoint committee chairpeople, you are welcome to discuss that, but it's not particularly relevant for evaluating what the Obama administration would be able to accomplish legislatively. I could also provide a list of the legislation that had majority support but failed because it could not reach 60 votes. Or that was not voted on because of threats of a Republican filibuster. [There is a specific group of people, that I don't think particularly highly of, who chastise Democrats for inaction when the Democrats had a non-super majority in the Senate when these people know that Republican intransigence held up bills that had majority (but not supermajority) support.]
Andy, you need better sources. Hint: the weirder the URL, the less likely the truth.
Are any of the dates given wrong? How long do you think the Democrats had a supermajority in the Senate?
Confronted with the options of "idiot" or "liar", garage mahal uses the escape hatch of "weasel".
I'm not sure what type of dishonesty it is to call people liars for making completely correct statements that conflict with your tortured re-definition. But whatever it is, garage, you're a master of it.
So anyone who doesn't interpret "control" as filibuster proof control is lying? that is beyond ridiculous.
At this point I'm pretty sure we have established the sequence of events related to Democratic majority (long term) and supermajorty (short term) control of the Senate.
I think the more interesting question is how much having majority and supermajority control matters.
garage, you said It used to bother me when righties wouldn't acknowledge a fact, or just lie about a fact.
I agree. But you lied above, and you are now throwing shit-bombs.
Here, let me help you: write "I was wrong. The Democratic Party of the United States controlled the Presidency, the Senate, and the House of Representatives for two years." Post that. It will cleanse you.
Clean up.
Garage: Anyone with an internet connection can [or should be able to] easily verify Democrats didn't have control [filibuster proof in the senate] of three branches for 2 years.
Since when is "having control" having a filibutsr proof Senate? When did such scorched earth tactics become the norm? When did it become acceptable for you?
You've become as much of a statistical outliar as Andy R.
Half way there!
You're a "glass is half empty" type. I say "Three quarters there!"
...having 60 votes in the Senate is a more important consideration than having 50 + VP or 51 votes.
Why don't you look up how many bills have passed the Senate with fewer than 60 votes, then get back to us.
Or you could just read chickelit's comment @12:30.
Realizing that the Senate is happily gridlocked most of the time, there is still something pathetic and small about Andy R. and company complaining that Obama only had a supermajority for only six months.
One of the sad things about the W administration was how many of his bad ideas passed with bi-partisan support. Obama's bad ideas needed a super majority. That should tell you something.
This observation speaks to Robert Cooks' dismay, which has no redress.
I think the more interesting question is how much having majority and supermajority control matters.
Discuss that all you like. I was commenting on Garage calling someone a liar for using a valid definition of control. Had Garage wanted to make that point, it's fine. Instead of making a point, he called someone a liar.
At this point I'm pretty sure we have established the sequence of events related to Democratic majority (long term) and supermajorty (short term) control of the Senate.
Typical. When backed into a factual corner, these guys never admit that they made an erroneous charge. They just ask us to "move on".
Now I think I know why liberals are unhappy: All the effort they expend trying to redefine words to suit their rhetorical needs leaves them on edge and cranky.
Chip S., you say they may be on edge and cranky.
This is a problem. These people have some energy. Where will they channel it?
That wingnut rag the New York Times seems to think "control of the Congress" means a simple majority:
Two leading U.S. election analysts, Charlie Cook and Stu Rothenberg, both suppose, as of today, that control of the next Senate is about a 50-50 proposition.
Helpful hint: There's no way it can be a 50-50 proposition that either party will win a supermajority.
Whee!! Google is my bff!!
When backed into a factual corner, these guys never admit that they made an erroneous charge.
I wasn't part of that discussion. If you have an issue with someone else saying something incorrect, you can take it up with them. I can't answer for anyone else in this thread.
It only takes more than 60 votes to do something extremist or out of step with the public
This is something we are going to have to disagree on. Some people say that the dramatic increase in Republican filibusters was because the Democrats kept proposing extremist legislation. Other people say that the dramatic increase in Republican filibusters was because the Republicans created a new norm requiring a de facto 60 vote majority to get anything done.
I think a good example here was the attempted use of the filibuster against the new START treaty. That agreement being backed by all six living Republican former Secretaries of State. Republicans would routinely use the filibuster against even non-controversial items to eat up time in the legislative calendar.
"But yeah, Obama's just another pea from the capitalist pod of puppets."
That's right...you've got it.
These people have some energy. Where will they channel it?
garage channels it into pleasure boating and making a fool of himself online.
AndyR's pretty forthcoming about his preferred energy channel also.
I wasn't part of that discussion.
Where is your customary demand for civility? Does that only apply to people you disagree with?
I think a good example here was the attempted use of the filibuster against the new START treaty. That agreement being backed by all six living Republican former Secretaries of State.
I've got stuff to do and don't have the energy to research crap from someone who appears to be a wilfull liar, but I invite you, Andy, to back this up. Give us a link or two. And not from http://www.IHeartBibBoobs.WeAreCommunists.WeAreTheRealCommunists.MaybeWeAreActuallyJustIdiots.com.
I'm most happy when my insides match my outsides. It's quite a personal thing and I don't, at all, see how a political philosophy has anything to do with it.
This is where conservatism and progressive/liberalism part ways. They want to force everyone to conform to THEIR viewpoints with no attempt to understand or accept that there may be differences in opinion.
I would not have put those two thoughts together, as I’ve not viewed the Serenity Prayer in terms of political persuasions. It’s really quite a personal prayer seeking guidance. Using it to judge others, seems to me to miss the point.
@BobEllison, the shortlink for that site is http://www.dailykos.com.
Where is your customary demand for civility?
When have I ever demanded civility? Are you confusing me with someone else?
I've got stuff to do and don't have the energy to research crap from someone who appears to be a wilfull liar
What do you think I'm lying about? Are you confusing me with someone else?
Do you want information about START regarding the Republican filibuster threat or the support from the previous Secretaries of State?
Bob Ellison said...
This is a problem. These people have some energy. Where will they channel it?
Channel it downliver, I hope. it's pure bile. Wily bile.
Andy, it's not rocket science. Do you have a link?
All the effort they expend trying to redefine words to suit their rhetorical needs leaves them on edge and cranky.
Control of a body means to you: not actually being able to control what legislation gets passed. Or even voted on. Got it.
When have I ever demanded civility?
Sorry, I haven't got an inventory of your comments handy and I don't have the time to search through them.
If you've never issued a call for Althouse conservatives to denounce the "hate speech" of some other conservatives, then I withdraw my comment.
But my recollection is that you do that semi-regularly.
Chip S., he may not have demanded civility. So civility is not required!
Andy R pleaded: Do you want information about START regarding the Republican filibuster threat or the support from the previous Secretaries of State?
What's the name for that game people play when they put one hand over the other's in order to trump their opponent?
Your beloved Supermajority is a trump to a filibuster. Both tactics are Constitutional, and both tactics are bipartisan, i.e., they don't belong to one party or the other. There are other bipartisan tactics to resolve things. One is to ferret and weed out extremist positions in Congress. What enables exteremist positions? Safe seats & gerrymandering. Complacency and indifference also enables extremism.
Ideologues would be a lot happier if they didn't spend all their time at political blogs arguing ad nauseam w/no discernible result.
Go outside, smell the roses and stop texting ...
carry on
Control of a body means to you: not actually being able to control what legislation gets passed. Or even voted on. Got it.
"Control" of a legislative body has a common, well-known meaning accepted by pretty much everyone but you, Humpty. Even the NYT.
Andy, it's not rocket science. Do you have a link?
Politico?
Senate Democrats appear to have enough votes to overcome a Republican filibuster on the new START arms-control treaty, though it’s unclear if they will have the 67 votes needed for ratification.
At least five Republicans have committed to supporting the U.S.-Russia treaty or are leaning that way, including two who say they will vote for cloture. If Democrats can hold their 58-member caucus together, that would likely put them at or over the 60-vote threshold required to end debate on the treaty and move forward.
Here is some more on the Republican all-filibuster all-the-time tactic:
As Republicans engaged in yet another of their endless filibusters on what should have been a routine matter — reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank — Mr. Reid took to the floor and praised two senators for being right last year when he was wrong.
The Republicans made a conscious decision to filibuster routine things because it required scheduling a cloture vote which would delay legislation and eat up time on the calendar. I didn't realize this was in dispute.
Andy R. said...
If you people want to discuss "control" and the ability to appoint committee chairpeople, you are welcome to discuss that, but it's not particularly relevant for evaluating what the Obama administration would be able to accomplish legislatively
Hilarious.
Note how many times you and your ilk parsed this when the charge of Republicans had complete control for 8 years was continuously bandied about.
Also, in other words, Obama, this super-duper smart leader can't do anything because he doesn't have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.
I love it.
shiloh said...
Ideologues would be a lot happier if they didn't spend all their time at political blogs arguing ad nauseam w/no discernible result.
As I said upthread, When backed into a factual corner, these guys never admit that they made an erroneous charge. They just ask us to "move on".
Don't worry, shiloh. This takes very little time and even less effort.
Andy, it's in dispute, especially with reference to the ridiculous links you placed.
garage mahal said...
Control of a body means to you: not actually being able to control what legislation gets passed. Or even voted on. Got it.
Hysterical.
Um, dipshit, the Senate Majority Leader, currently a Democrat, controls the calendar and what can be voted on.
A cloture vote is also a vote, you idiot.
Do you want information about START regarding the Republican filibuster threat or the support from the previous Secretaries of State?
Yes!
Because nothing says "I like to evaluate ideas" like 6 SECRETARY'S OF STATE SAY SO
Keep beclowning.
If you've never issued a call for Althouse conservatives to denounce the "hate speech" of some other conservatives, then I withdraw my comment.
I don't like homophobic speech and I don't think people should engage in it, but not because of "civility". I have no problem with telling someone to go fuck themselves or being told to do so. Althouse delivered a fuck in my direction at one point, although I can't remember what I was saying beforehand. I don't think it's a particularly effective debating tactics, but I swear all the time and have no attachment to politeness or manners.
I think I've chastised Althouse before for criticizing someone for being fat, but I consider that different from "civility". And I don't like the race-baiting language used in our politics sometimes, but again, that isn't a "civility" issue to me. If people want to say that gay people should be rounded up and put in camps or beaten as children (the way those two pastors did recently) or call people "illegals" (the way lots of commenters here like to), I'll probably attack people for doing that, but my objection isn't that you're being uncivil.
Chip S.
I wasn't arguing w/anyone, just making an observation.
take care
AndyR, guess what?
Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution grants power to the President to make treaties with the "advice and consent" of two-thirds of the Senate. This is different from normal legislation which requires approval by simple majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.
It's not a filibuster.
"Control" of a legislative body has a common, well-known meaning accepted by pretty much everyone but you, Humpty. Even the NYT
By people that can't think through things clearly. Like the blogs you hang out at evidently.
but it's not particularly relevant for evaluating what the Obama administration would be able to accomplish legislatively
Remember all the whining Bush did when there were not 60 Republican senators?
Yet somehow budgets, tax cuts, NCLB, Prescription Drugs, Patriot Act, 2 AUMF's etc all got passed.
Vote Democrats, they're incompetent!
garage mahal said...
By people that can't think through things clearly.
Note the village idiot is reduced to redefining words in order to comfort himself.
It's not a filibuster.
Do I need to explain to you how a filibuster threat was being used against new START or would you like to figure it out yourself?
"Most liberal advocates of high taxes usually only want taxes on the rich. You could argue that is wrong, but they are certainly not motivated by worshiping the state."
Of course it's wrong. It's wrong for a variety of reasons. But one can not explain that it's wrong because reason is irrelevant compared to emotion. But whatever, I'll try.
Psychologically it's damaging to have over 50% of citizens not paying income tax (yes, sales tax, I know) because it makes them, conceptually, non-contributers. This is a human dignity issue. This is a "we're all in this together" issue.
It's damaging because it reinforces the idea that it's right and just to expect producers to part with what they've produced, simply on account of they have more than others have.
This leads, not just to punitive taxes, but to all sort of "don't let them get away with anything" laws and regulations and agencies and red-tape that never hurts the mega-corp in the least but destroys businesses too small to have a full time legal and accounting department, or prevents new businesses altogether.
But somehow, the conservative take is considered the "mean" one, the one that bad people hold, while the most damaging opinion is considered right and just and proves that people care about the poor by insisting they CAN NOT be full grown adult contributers to society, and that corporations who make their money from employing people should be punished for success and should pay.
It's insane.
No, liberals don't worship the state, but they seem entirely uninterested in what actually helps poor people the most, or respecting the poor as full citizens. (Who are also able to be responsible for their own failure to choose to not get around to going to the doctor, BTW.)
The truth is, elevating a person's feelings about the world and about themselves to the ultimate virtue is more profoundly selfish that the most hard-hearted libertarian notion of self-interest. Until an individual has actually been *helped* all the good will, caring, and proper feeling is simply masturbation.
Senate Democrats appear to have enough votes to overcome a Republican filibuster on the new START arms-control treaty, though it’s unclear if they will have the 67 votes needed for ratification.
You and the author of that stupidity really should read the constitution.
By people that can't think through things clearly. Like the blogs you hang out at evidently
I get it now.
You're drunk.
Or else you actually think the New York Times is a blog.
The New York Times has several internet blogs.
take care, blessings
AndyR--WTF??? Are you really this poorly educated?
The 2/3 requirement for ratification of a treaty is a provision of the Constitution. The filibuster is a rule of the Senate.
DO I HAVE TO START USING CAPLOCK?
You and the author of that stupidity really should read the constitution.
We've now got two of the regulars here who can't figure out what was going on with new START and the filibuster.
Would you like some more links? It's not a particularly complex situation. Here is Senator Jim DeMint on the matter: "Why I May Filibuster New START".
shiloh repeats the same old tired lie.
Hey, that's kinda fun! Easy, too.
Andy R. said...
The Republicans made a conscious decision to filibuster routine things because it required scheduling a cloture vote which would delay legislation and eat up time on the calendar. I didn't realize this was in dispute.
Of course you "didn't realize" you idiot.
You have no clue what the Export-Import bank is or does.
Further, you also can't seem to understand that simply passing legislation isn't such a great idea.
Finally, you also can't bring yourself to acknowledge that Democrats filibustered a bunch of "routine" stuff including judicial nominations, which had never been done before.
But go on lowing the bar for the pathetic little people you vote for.
It speaks volumes.
Andy R. said...
We've now got two of the regulars here who can't figure out what was going on with new START and the filibuster.
You're a silly hypocrite and your fake outrage about filibusters and treaties is comical.
Jay and Chip: It's now a contest to see which of you will own up first to your confusion about the use of a filibuster regarding new START.
Who will be the bigger person?
Did you read the article you linked to, Andy?
Here's the key point:
The newly elected Republican senators have signed a letter asking our leadership to postpone debate on START until they take office in a few weeks and have ample time to review the details.
You see, DeMint didn't necessarily want to kill the treaty. Because if he wanted to do that, and he had 41 votes, then he could.
What he clearly wanted was to consider some of the conditions of the treaty, with the newly elected representatives of the people present.
It still would take 67 votes to pass.
Palladian was dead-on when called Andy R a reactionary. He's even boring now too.
Chip, your ALL CAPS comment was spot on.
I'm wondering if it's going to be worth the time required to parse Andy's rather idiosyncratic definition of civility, by which there's an important difference b/w being rude and being uncivil.
Maybe I'll pose that question at Turley's blog.
In any event, in AndyLand it's apparently much worse to call a fat person "fat" than to call a truth-teller a "liar." Duly noted.
You see, DeMint didn't necessarily want to kill the treaty. Because if he wanted to do that, and he had 41 votes, then he could.
Does this mean you're retracting your previous comment that it wasn't a filibuster?
We weren't arguing about whether or not the filibuster was a good idea, but if it was happening. Have you now conceded that I am correct?
Again, Republicans required cloture votes on issues that they knew had the votes to pass. I think they did this to eat up time on the legislative calendar. Maybe you think they did it for other reasons.
This happened for new START, even when it was known that there was a super duper majority to ratify it in the Senate. There still had to be a scheduled cloture vote to cut off debate.
I think it's awfully darn hard to present people who WANT TO READ THE LEGISLATION as the bad guys.
Though it won't stop anyone from trying.
Andy R. said...
Jay and Chip: It's now a contest to see which of you will own up first to your confusion about the use of a filibuster regarding new START.
Hardcore Sullivanists love to project a need to admit confusion when faced with their own confusion. It's rather like a octopus squirting ink.
Hardcore Sullivanists love to project a need to admit confusion when faced with their own confusion. It's rather like a octopus squirting ink.
Here is what Chip said: "It's not a filibuster."
Now it's obvious what he was confused about, although a little surprising that his confusion was able to overcome the article I posted which clearly explained what was going on.
But that doesn't explain why he wasn't willing to post and say he made a mistake and that I was right about the filibuster and the new START treaty.
There still had to be a scheduled cloture vote to cut off debate.
One last time, and that's it.
You used a "filibuster" of START as an example of the importance of a 60-vote supermajority.
What you don't seem to see is that if the Republicans had 41 votes to block START, that was 7 more than necessary, b/c of the Constitution. No filibuster necessary.
But--as should be clear from the circumstances--the Republicans did not have the 34 votes to block START (in which case they most certainly did not have 41 votes to block it via filibuster). DeMint wasn't seeking to block it, but simply to delay the vote until newly elected Senators took office. Have you got a problem now with expressions of the will of the people?
The point is that a filibuster was not necessary to block START, so you've hung your very prominent hat on a very poorly chosen example.
Oh, and by the way...START was ratified by the Senate, 71-26.
So you'll have to look elsewhere for an example of whatever point it is that you 're trying to make.
Oh, and apparently the Democrats controlled the Senate in December 2010 even by the Garage Mahal Definition, as DeMint's attempt to postpone that vote via filibuster failed, 67-28.
To recap:
1. START was not defeated via filibuster.
2. The floor vote on START was not delayed to the next session of Congress via filibuster.
3. Any treaty that can be blocked via filibuster does not require a filibuster, b/c the required supermajority for ratification is more stringent than the current filibuster rule.
Other than that, it was a fine example of the critical importance of having at least 60 Democrats in the Senate in order to pass something.
The point is that a filibuster was not necessary to block START, so you've hung your very prominent hat on a very poorly chosen example.
One point I have made in this thread multiple times is that filibusters are used to eat up time and slow down the legislative calendar. This was particularly an issue when START was being considered because there was also pending legislation related to the DREAM Act and Don't Ask Don't Tell repeal.
There was an open question of whether the Democrats would be able to get any of this legislation passed before Congress ran out of time that session. Time is a real factor when it comes to legislation.
In that context, DeMint threatening a filibuster and requiring a delay for a cloture vote for legislation that would surely pass, I would argue, was about eating up as much time as possible. It doesn't make sense to say it was about trying to wait until after the recess since DeMint knew he would lose the cloture vote and that the treaty would be ratified by the current Senate.
Again, we ended up on this tangent about new START because someone claimed that the increased use of the filibuster was a reaction to extremist legislation from the Democrats. I brought up new START as an example to show that even issues with extremely broad bipartisan support still had to go through the motions of cloture.
You are correct that a filibuster wouldn't be necessary to block a treaty, since a treaty requires a higher threshold, but I brought up new START to illustrate a different point: the routine use of the filibuster by Republicans to delay business that is going to pass anyway. The filibuster used to be reserved for extreme legislation, as was claimed earlier in the thread, but Republicans have realized that delay is one of their most potent weapons and are routinely using filibusters to drag out the required time to pass legislation.
We then got off on another tangent when you and Jay confused the filibuster vote with the super duper majority required to pass a treaty.
I meant half-way from 200 to 400.
"Remember all the whining Bush did when there were not 60 Republican senators?
"Yet somehow budgets, tax cuts, NCLB, Prescription Drugs, Patriot Act, 2 AUMF's etc all got passed.
"Vote Democrats, they're Republicans!"
Fixed it for you.
(The one word change also makes clear why having Obama in office and any sort of recent Democratic majorities has no correlation with what anyone left of center might want.)
I know, I was just joshin.
We are getting to 400, but it's slowing down. Might end up heart breakingly close.
Unless I keep commenting about the number of comments.
435 filibusters by minority party = control by the majority party!
Bu b but the New York Times said ....!
Testing
Ah, so.... That's how you do it!
Conservatives are mature enough to realize that our happiness does not depend on externalities, while immature (and liberals generally) focus on things that make them unhappy. Happiness is your choice. I choose to be happy.
Now, that doesn't mean I am happy with Obama. I'm not. But my internal processes, my mood, my temperament all tend toward the cool, contented and reserved. Life i8s a struggle, but i8t also meant to be enjoyed. I truly can't understand people who spend so much time making mental lists about THINGS that "make" them unhappy.
Why do that?
And just to be super clear, here is the context in which I brought up new START and the point I was making:
It only takes more than 60 votes to do something extremist or out of step with the public
This is something we are going to have to disagree on. Some people say that the dramatic increase in Republican filibusters was because the Democrats kept proposing extremist legislation. Other people say that the dramatic increase in Republican filibusters was because the Republicans created a new norm requiring a de facto 60 vote majority to get anything done.
I think a good example here was the attempted use of the filibuster against the new START treaty. That agreement being backed by all six living Republican former Secretaries of State. Republicans would routinely use the filibuster against even non-controversial items to eat up time in the legislative calendar.
New START was specifically being provided as evidence that a filibuster was being used against a treaty that had widespread bipartisan support and was not remotely extremist.
Some of these Althouse comment threads can get confusing when multiple people are having multiple overlapping conversations, but you seem to have been mistaken about the points I was making in regards to new START.
Nice work Cook!
BTW, in my comment at 3:02 I was making an allusion to William Holden in (the great Stalag 17.
Thanks, Garage.
By Garage's logic, true congressional control would require 2/3 majorities (67 in the Senate, 290 in the House). Why get past the filibuster only to run into a pesky Presidential veto?
Granted, Barry isn't going to veto much proferred up by the current group, but a non-Democrat President might have different ideas.
Is that your blog Robert?
I only figured that link thing out a couple weeks ago. It was from a link that Allie Oop left, so if it gets annoying, it's her fault.
Nope...I don't have a blog. That is Arthur Silber at the helm.
Back to the happiness issue, if Walmart customers really are mostly poor right-wingers, then I'd say they are definitely happier than the progs I see in the hipster coffee shops.
Unhappy people have a better grasp on reality; or, Those with a better grasp on reality tend to be more unhappy; or, (as already stated here by others) Ignorance is Bliss
I'm just posting this to get us closer to 400.
I'm a giver.
My guess on the political divide is that conservatives are not as engaged in the business of trying to organize everyone into a collective. I think doing that would be extraordinarily frustrating because so many people won't cooperate.
Eventually they'll get around to deciding utopia is within their grasp if only the non-cooperators would just disappear somehow. Statists always reach that conclusion in the end.
You know what makes me happy? A lot of sad liberals.
I'm HAVING A GREAT DAY!
I really tend to doubt all of this clap trap about who is happier. People are either able to decide they are happy and act that way despite sadness in their lives or in the world, or they are not. I doubt their is a reliable way to know for certain, but if there were, I'd bet that happiness doesn't correlate at all with political leaning.
I'm a happy guy. I remember what the Beatles said about Happiness, but I have no idea what the hell they are talking about.
Andy R. said...
Who will be the bigger person?
Not you.
Especially since there was no fillibuster.
Anyway, I rather enjoy watching you and little garagie pretend that Democrats don't control the Senate and we can't judge Obama's legislative lack of achievement.
Really. It just shows how effective that big dummy Bush was getting all those bills passed when the Dems really controlled the Senate for the entirety of his Presidency.
Robert Cook said...
(The one word change also makes clear why having Obama in office and any sort of recent Democratic majorities has no correlation with what anyone left of center might want.)
Keep going with the stupid blanket assertions, bozo.
Really.
In reality, just about everyone left of center touts Obamacare, the stimulus, and the auto bailouts.
And extending unemployment insurance, in perpetuity.
All of which has been done by the Democratic majority.
One's general level of happiness, although certainly affected to a degree and ephemerally by advantageous or adverse events in one's life, or by one's concentration on adopting a positive or, at least, a "bend with the wind" mental outlook, is, as with one's natural metabolism, largely determined by one's physiology and body chemistry.
Especially since there was no fillibuster.
Are you denying there was a cloture vote on December 21, 2010 to break the Republican filibuster and allow for a vote to ratify the new START treaty?
400!
No, wait.
390!
Hatman,
I can't speak to the rest of the story, but shutting down a dedicated TB hospital is a good thing--it's a wasteful duplication of facilities and effort. Most other states did so in the 50's or early 60's at the latest.
Allie,
"am I not the top liberal or what?!"
Talk about damning yourself with faint praise!!!
shiloh,
"inane generalizations are the nature of the beast at political blogs, especially conservative blogs."
What an awesomely statement! Self-confirming AND self-refuting all at the same time!
Andy R. said...
Especially since there was no fillibuster.
Are you denying there was a cloture vote on December 21, 2010 to break the Republican filibuster
Er, there was no filibuster. A cloture vote doesn't mean there was.
Idiot.
I brought up "the Republican filibuster threat" over new START. I then provided a cite that was explaining what was happening with Republican Senators threatening to filibuster and the cloture vote that was required to break this filibuster.
You and Chip both went on the attack and thought I was confused about the super super majority required to ratify the treaty versus the super majority required for the cloture vote to cut off debate. Your 1:41 comment captures your mistake quite well.
Under cloture, the Senate may limit consideration of a pending matter to 30 additional hours of debate.
There was no filibuster.
Stop commenting on these topics, buffoon.
You and Chip both went on the attack and thought I was confused about the super super majority required to ratify the treaty versus the super majority required for the cloture vote to cut off debate. Your 1:41 comment captures your mistake quite well.
I didn't make a mistake, idiot.
Wow, this thread instill going strong, can I make 400?
Whoopie
Senate Democrats appear to have enough votes to overcome a Republican filibuster on the new START arms-control treaty, though it’s unclear if they will have the 67 votes needed for ratification.
You and the author of that stupidity really should read the constitution.
Could you explain what you meant by this? Why should we read the Constitution? What was unclear or inaccurate about that passage?
Besides the obvious point, that you were conflating the 60 votes needed to prevent a Republican filibuster with the larger number of votes needed to ratify a treaty.
There. 402. I hope you're all happy.
I'll bet that seeing Allie wearing pyramid-shaped bra cups would make Andy R smile.
"Meade said...
There. 402. I hope you're all happy."
Yes, but as a conservative, white, married man with children, I could hardly help but be happy.
And since we are already safely over 400, this post is immune from the charge of padding the numbers.
Chickie, why Andy is gay, he would probably rather see Palladian wear them. Or that broccoli Scott guy.
406!
407!
I got a million of 'em!
Nonsense, leslyn. Soacialism has never been tried and doesn't exist.
Andy R. said...
Could you explain what you meant by this? Why should we read the Constitution? What was unclear or inaccurate about that passage?
There was no filibuster.
There was no filibuster.
Screeching about a mythical filibuster when a treaty requires 67 votes to pass, makes you an idiot.
That's what.
Soacialism has never been tried and doesn't exist.
Socialism only differs by a jot and tittle from the Socalism favored by Jerry Brown.
And there's beaucoup jot and tittle in LA.
AllieOop said...
Chickie, why Andy is gay, he would probably rather see Palladian wear them.
I figgered you'd cringe at the thought.
Those of us disinclined to like socialism are also skeptical of anything produced by the UN.
For those who are inclined to socialism, why not form a commune? It is reletively easy compared with getting 300 million citizens to go along with your schemes.
Hmmm...
Let's see...
Envy or gratitude.
Which one makes you happier.
I dunno. That's a tough one.
There's more than one way to fill a bustier.
One side isn't interested in obvious methodology.
Post a Comment