Reason Morning Links: Another Opening at Federal Reserve, Filibuster Record, No Mail on Saturdays?

• Obama will get to appoint three seats on the Federal Reserve.
• U.S. Postal Service says it can't survive unless Congress allows it to stop delivering mail on Saturdays.
• GOP on pace to set Senate filibuster record.
• Pentagon announces new policy allowing service members to access social networking sites from the DoD network.
• Tea Party, meet the Coffee Party.

Comments

[In Time Of War]

Oh, and GM is recalling 1.3 million cars due to power steering failures. Since we own the company, I like to think that we all, individually, share the guilt and blame for this.

[The Other Kevin]

Your share of the blame is due next month.

[Probot]

So will you be representing us at the congressional hearing?

[Warty]

Good name.

[J sub D]

I want Tim Geithner hauled before congress to explain this egregious lack of concern for the motoring public's safety.

[Johnny Longtorso]

If I'm responsible for the plane crash in Austin, who is responsible for this?

Baby girl survives after being shot in the chest in parents' 'global warming suicide pact'
...Her parents said they feared the effects of global warming in a suicide note discovered by police.

[John]

You will never hear about that story. If they had been nuts who killed themselves and the little girl because of fears about Obama, it would be front page news. Frank Reigh and Thomas Frank would be declaring Rush Limbaugh and Paul Ryan guilty of murder.

[MNG]

Nah, the problem with right wing nuts is their tendency to shoot up the general public or the sinister "them" they see as Enemies of Teh Freedom! not suicide pacts...The more apt analogy would be if someone went out and shot up the board meeting of some energy company because they were convinced that said energy companies were evil or some such nonsense.

[John]

Did you read Frank Reich this weekend? He is claiming that the right is building "facebook shrines" to the guy in Austin. And that Republican politicians are responsible. Reich and Frank are just appalling.

[MNG]

Frank Reich? The old Colt's QB? That's an odd thing for him to be writing about...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Reich

[John]

No. The failed drama critic for the New York Times. You know who I mean. And Reich you are talking about never played for the Colts. He played for the Bills as Jim Kelly's backup.

[Ska]

The only worse position on that team was Scott Norwood's backup.

[Johnny Longtorso]

I knew I could count on MNG to come defend a double standard.

BTW, the "suicide" pact involved the couple's kids also.

[Johnny Longtorso]

I knew I could count on MNG to come defend a double standard.

BTW, the "suicide" pact involved the couple's kids also.

[MNG]

A double post on my "double standard."

But it's not a double standard OM/JT etc., I explained why your analogy is inapt above. Pay attention.

[Fluffy]

No, douche.

You said that right-wing nuts kill others, instead of just killing themselves.

But these people ALSO KILLED OTHERS. Unless you think that their children could legally consent to their own murders.

[MNG]

I said they "shoot up the general public or the sinister "them" they see as Enemies of Teh Freedom!", in other words they tend to attack their "enemies" (hence the charge of "hate filled rhetoric"). Killing your own kid and yourself is a different thing. Have you seen the Road? There's a scene where the hero has to think about killing his own kid rather than have a bad fate befall the kid. Can you say with any sense that he "attacked" his kid if he carried through, or that he attacked him in the same sense that he attacked, say, an earlier character who threatened his kid? Goofy.

[Probot]

Hello, Shit Facktory!

[JW]

OK, who's sock-puppeting MNG to make him look like a shit-addled moron?

Not cool guys, not cool.

[Citizen Nothing]

The kid's parents took a vote, so it's cool.

[pistoffnick]

Ain't democracy grand?

[Pope Jimbo]

Sounds like the parents couldn't push the issue through because of unfair filibustering from the snotty kids, so they went with reconciliation.

[R C Dean]

Nah, the problem with right wing nuts is their tendency to shoot up the general public

Like Amy Bishop, the nutbar who didn't get tenure?

Or the guy who crashed his plane into the office building?

Or Bruce Ivins, the anthrax guy who hated Dick Cheney?

[Probot]

Hello, Shit Facktory!

[The Art-P.O.G.]

MNG, you're missing the point. That these people were apparently batshit insane is more relevant than their politics. Which is exactly what I said about those right wing gunpersons.

[Hazel Meade]

What is it with the liberal fetish for suicide attackers? First the Islamotards and now this.

[MNG]

Hazel
Where do you get your idea that liberals like suicide attackers?

And I think it strains the usual meaning of suicide attackers to include this couple. By that logic that office employee who kills himself and his kids when he loses his job is a "suicide attacker." I guess in some very technical sense...

[Hazel Meade]

Well, you are always busy defending the use of suicide bombings when Palestinians do it. They're depaerate or something.

And isn't these some sort of cult surrounding Rachel Corrie, the deluded chick who suicidally stood in front of a moving bulldozer?

And then there's the whole monks setting themselves on fire thing. Or something to that effect.

Hey, at least conservatives understand that your job isn't to die for your cause. It's to make the OTHER poor dumb bastard die for HIS cause.

Must be some kind of perverse suppressed Christianity thing. "Look at me, as I symbolically die for your sins!!!"

[MNG]

"Well, you are always busy defending the use of suicide bombings when Palestinians do it."

Please provide one shred of evidence for that bullshit statement. Suicide bombings, as used by the Palestinians (and any one else I can think of) are inherently threatening of civilians and are deeply immoral. I have never said otherwise.

"And isn't these some sort of cult surrounding Rachel Corrie, the deluded chick who suicidally stood in front of a moving bulldozer?"

That "deluded chick" gave her life in protection of property rights and against collective punishments, two things I should think you would appreciate. The policy she was protesting was the demolition of the houses of family members of alleged terrorists. You need to get that right wing hack stick of your ass.

[Hazel Meade]

Please provide one shred of evidence for that bullshit statement.

Well, you are eager enough to defend Hamas launching rockets into Israel, and condemn the sinister Jews for stopping them.

You're also eager to insist that Israel open it's borders to all Palestinains seeking to enter the coutnry. Which would certainly make it easier to suicide bombers to acheive the glory they desire.

And, you really don't see parents killing their children in a suicide pact as a terribly serious thing, either.

So even if you havn't explicitly come out in favor of suicide attacks. You're at least "Suicide, schmooicide, no big deal, what are you people getting all upset about?"

The policy she was protesting was the demolition of the houses of family members of alleged terrorists.

Family members who were material accomplices before and after the fact by sheltering said terrorists in thier homes.
Last I checked, aiding and abbeting mass murder was still frowned upon by libertarians.

[mr simple]

GOP on pace to set Senate filibuster record.

You have to have a goal.

FTA:Quite another is a vote against creating jobs in an economy with nearly 10 percent unemployment and midterm elections nine months away.

Yeah, those dumb Republicans. If they would just vote for jobs and vote against the recession and poverty, we would all be ok. Then they could vote us all our own unicorn and free ice cream!

[MNG]

The filibuster is a tool that has been available to either side for a long time, so part of the bitching about it doesn't impress me.

What concerns me a bit more is that given the nutty way the Senate is structured you can have a small chunk of the US population hold up the will of the majority with that tool in some rather absurd ways. The Senate should be apportioned like the House.

[Citizen Nothing]

Obama, Biden and Hillary Clinton disagree with you MNG.
Or at least they did when they were in the Senate.

[mr simple]

You do realize there is a reason there are two houses of congress that are set up differently, right? Does the less populous states not wanting to be run by the larger states ring a bell? If 50% + 1 can do anything they want then you have a tyranny of the majority. If you can't convince 60 other people in the senate that your law is necessary, then your law shouldn't get passed.

[MNG]

Oh, piss on your tyranny of the majority. Government derives its authority from consent of the majority. It ain't perfect but it's a hell of a lot better than a tyranny of the minority.

[John]

That is why you supported the Republicans using the nuclear option to get their judicial appointments through right? Seriously MNG, do you think none of us have ever read anything you have written? Just shut the fuck up. No one is going to buy it.

[Citizen Nothing]

MNG is a uniter, not a divider, John. Why do you hate inclusive discourse?

[John]

When the Republicans take back the Congress in November and Obama is playing defense, something tells me MNG is going to regret the "piss on your tyranny of the majority" comment. I won't be surprised if he pulls a Joe and runs off to avoid the beatings he will receive with his own words.

[MNG]

And pray tell what did I right about that John? There's a search thingee in the corner.

You have liberals living in your head man.

Stay away from planes please...

[John]

So you think it was a ok had the Republicans done that? You think they should have used the nuclear option? You want to go on record saying that and live with it? Stop using bullshit weasel words like I never said that and say what you think about the subject. And further, what possible reason would anyone have to believe that you support such a move given everything else you write? Again, no one is buying it. You just want your way.

[Citizen Nothing]

John, John, John. How long you been hanging out here, Dude? MNG is a proud pragmatist. We already know that he's for it long as it's done for the right reasons by the right people, (whatever "it" is).

[MNG]

How many of your sad opinions are based on assuming what other people think or positions you think they "must" have taken, or will take? Face it, some right wing radio program tells you what "liberals" "said" or "thought" or "will say or think" on various issues, and then you, buying it with no proof (you have no proof at all that I supported or opposed the nuclear option), proclaim "gotcha!" based on nothing but assumptions.

Pathetic John.

[John]

If you did support the nuclear option say so. This whole conversation all you have said is "I have no proof you did object". But you have never said what you actually thought. Yes or no, do you think the Republicans should have used the nuclear option to end Democratic filibusters of judicial nominees?

[Tony]

John,

Judicial nominations are arguably the one thing where the filibuster makes sense, since they're lifetime appointments. But being in favor of an "up-or-down" vote for judges but nothing else is the least sensible position.

[John]

The Republicans never pursued the nuclear option. Further, one judge on a court is not the same thing as reordering the entire health care industry. And don't even pretend that the Dems won't pass it by majority and then demand 60 votes to repeal it. That is the entire plan and how they want to get and keep a policy everyone but the lunatic fringe hates.

[MNG]

Again John, do you have any evidence for what I thought of the proposed nuclear option or the filibuster back when the GOP held power? You don't, do you, you just concocted some elaborate "gotcha" based on assuming...

[John]

For the fifth time MNG, answer the question. I don't need evidence, I have you. What did you think or it at the time and what do you think now? Why is it so difficult for you to answer?

You won't answer it because you know what everyone else knows, that you are lying sack of shit who thinks that all is fair as long as your side is doing it. Unless and until you are willing to say that you think the Republicans would have been totally justified and right in circumventing a Dem filibuster. It doesn't require any looking into the past. It only requires that you give an honest opinion of what you think now.

But you won't do that and just play the "you have no proof game" because you are incapable of giving an honest opinion. And are in fact so dishonest, you won't even admit to being what you are.

[MNG]

I've always been opposed to the filibuster and the apportionment of seats in the Senate. They violate common sense and any idea of government being based on the will of the people.

This is btw why you could not find any evidence of me supporting the Dems use of the filibuster.

So will you know admit you were plainly wrong on this?

[John]

so you think the Dems were wrong to filibuster Republican judicial nominees? And you think the Republicans would have been absolutely right to abolish the filibuster in 2005 and done everything they had a majority to do including all of their judicial nominees and privatizing social security?

Answer both of those questions directly or shut the fuck up.

[MNG]

Yes, that was my stance. That's why you can't produce any evidence I did: because I didn't. I oppose the filibuster and current Senate structure period. Always have.

See, when you make a charge about someone, the burden is on YOU to demonstrate that you knew what the hell you were talking about, not on the other person to prove you wrong. I made no assumption about you, you made one about me.

See, you were wrong goofus. Now why would you assume that and then try to build some elaborate "gotcha" argument? Are you so given to overgeneralizations? Easily led by right wing demagogues who pronounce on what "liberals" believe?

See John you don't know what you are talking about concerning "liberals", you seem to know them through right wing media outlets.

It's been a very common position for a long time for liberals to be against the filibuster and the structure of the Senate. It's seen as undemocratic.

[John]

"Yes, that was my stance."

Well good for you. And thanks to this thread that will be your stance from now on. And a year from now when the Democrats are back to filibustering, anything short of full throated outrage on your part will result in your comments on this thread being re-posted and you being revealed to be the partisan hack people suspect you of being.

So I expect to hear a lot of talk from you about the importance of majority rule and the need for Democrats to back off and go with the program after the November elections.

That is all.

[Probot]

Hello again, Shit Facktory!

[Citizen Nothing]

I note the Coffee Party says it wants to "promote inclusive discourse."
You didn't write their platform, did you MNG?

[Fluffy]

The first amendment creates a tyranny of one.

Any individual can defy the will of the entire polity and say whatever the fuck they want.

I would say that it's absurd to define the prevention of state action as "tyranny". A lack of action is the default state. If the prevention of state action is tyrannical, then the ACLU is the most tyrannical group of men who has ever lived.

[MNG]

Of course not fluffy. Let's say the current regime allows something you find immoral, say theft. The majority wants to outlaw it but a minority blocks it.

Whoops, the prevention of the state taking action. Which you said can never be tyrannical. But which of course it is in this instance.

But try again!

[Fluffy]

That would be bad government, but it wouldn't be tyranny.

Tyranny is when the state does something TO you. Incompetence is not tyranny.

And if you don't like Senate apportionment or the filibuster because it defies "the will of the people", then you must hate EVERY amendment in the Bill of Rights, including the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, the right to freedom of religion, and the right to a jury trial. The amendments stand against the will of the majority just as much as Senate apportionment does.

[T]

Time to burn it down and start over then, MNG. 61% of the population thinks the .gov don't have consent.

[John]

No it shouldn't. If you did that people in Nevada or Wyoming would have no say in the federal government. We have a federal system. We don't have a parliamentary system. We are a union of states not people. The system was designed that way to keep the majority from running all over the minority.

If you didn't want to use the federal government to solve every problem and for things it was never intended to do, it wouldn't be such a problem for you. If you want Obamacare, let California and New York fund their own and leave the rest of the country alone.

And lastly, you never seemed to concerned about the imbalance of the Senate when the Republicans were in charge. So don't worry, come November you will be in the minority and be on here praising the filibuster again. In the mean time, stop insulting everyone's intelligence with your alleged concern over majority rights. Seriously, you post on here too much. It doesn't even pass the laugh test.

[MNG]

"If you did that people in Nevada or Wyoming would have no say in the federal government."

They should have a say, a say equal to their % of the population.

We are so used to having to revere the Founders that we can't just point out their screw-ups. Government's legitimacy derives from the consent of the governed, and consent is best determined by majority. Every other way is tyranny of the minority, which is numerically by definition more unfair.

[John]

they should have a say just as long as you get everything you want. And there is nothing screwed up about the federal system. It allows people in different parts of the country to have different kinds of government. We have a huge country of over 300 million people. And we have avoided tyranny for over 200 years. It has worked really well. The people of Texas don't want the same kind of government the people of California do.

Again, you can't seriously claim that if the roles were reversed and the Republicans were in charge and the Senate you wouldn't want the Dems to filibuster.

[MNG]

"And there is nothing screwed up about the federal system."

You can have a federal system and still have apportionment in both houses based on population...You literally are talking crazy talk.

"And we have avoided tyranny for over 200 years."

Er, not if you were a slave in the South or black under Jim Crow. And remember how the minority Southern state used anti-majoritarian rules and structures of our legislature to keep the rest of the country from doing anything about it?

[John]

So I guess you were outraged by the Democrat filibustering privatization of Social Security? You are so pathetic. Unless and until you can give an example of where you at the time objected to the Democrats filibustering a Republican policy, you are just proving yourself to be the partisan hack everyone thinks you are.

[MNG]

See those goal posts move? At first John not only assumed I must have been for the filibuster in the past and went on to create this entire argument based on that assumption. I asked him to provide any evidence of this and he says "oh, unless YOU show us that complained about the filibuster then you...."

Move those posts John, pedal that bike!

[John]

If you find filibusters so objectionable, you shouldn't have any problems listing examples in the past of ones you find objectionable. You don't have to produce an e-mail done at the time. You just have to say "the Republicans should have ended the bullshit anti-majoritarian filibuster when they had the power in 2005 and then passed their policies and programs by majority. And the Democrats were dead wrong and tyrannical for filibustering what was clearly the majority will."

Either agree to that or shut the fuck up and admit you are a partisan hack.

[MNG]

I'm afraid you're the partisan here John. I made no assumptions or assertions about what stance you held in the past. You made one about me, one that you cannot provide any evidence for. Why would you make an assertion for which you cannot provide a white of evidence for? B/c you are a hack?

[John]

You don't have make an assertion in the past. You just have to make one now. What do you think? You won't answer the question because you know that you hate the idea of the other side abolishing the filibuster. Unless and until you are willing to say that you support Republicans abolishing the filibuster and think they should have when they had the chance, shut the fuck up.

[MNG]

I've said it was my position now and the past goofy. The filibuster has always been wrong in principle, any abolition of it, by whatever party, would be correct.

Why would you assert otherwise about my stance when you knowingly had no evidence of all to that effect?

You're a hack, that's why.

[Fluffy]

But having a constitutional system that says that, for example, majority white communities can't just make all the black residents slaves again, or take away their right to vote, or what have you, ALSO violate the principle of majority rule.

The majority white Southern states had majorities that wanted to oppress blacks. Oh noes! The will of da people was violated!

[John]

Fluffy it is only the will of the people when it is doing something MNG approves of. Besides, he has now nailed himself to the cross of majority rule. Now every time the minority stands up to stop something MNG doesn't like, he can either shut up or say fuck yeah and have this thread thrown in his face. It is amazing how stupid and short sighted he is.

[Probot]

Fun Fact: The Founders were smarter than the MNG Shit Facktory.

[MNG]

Yes, yes, we realize you worship the Founders and think every stance they took unassailable. But guess what, the Founders themselves didn't want us to worship them and didn't think they were incapable of wrong stances, so what kind of an idiot does that make you?

[JW]

MNG lives up to his "Massah Nice Guy" handle once again.

[Jersey Patriot]

Government's legitimacy derives from the consent of the governed, and consent is best determined by majoritycontract.

FTFY

[SpongePaul]

i say let em deliver mail M-F. like we really need mail service 6 days a week, hell they could go M-W-F and i dont think many would care. BTW alot of other countries only have 4-5 day mail weeks. so big deal

[ed]

The linked article does not mention Saturday as the 6th day out, but Monday would make more sense, as that's the day most invented federal holidays fall on. No Saturdays would mean a 3-day gap several times a year.

[Slut Bunwalla]

We'll still have three-day gaps. Or do you think that anytime a holiday falls on a Monday, postal employees won't get that Tuesday off? Government employees do not give up their holidays easily.

[Mike M.]

About 95% of my mail is worthless coupons, credit card and mortgage applications, and other assorted generic crap. The important mail I get could be delivered in one or two days out of the entire month.

[MNG]

I think they should just deliver the mail when they feel like it.

[Probot]

Great idea, Shit Facktory!

[brotherben]

Is it just me, or is this site having troubles today? Real slow or not available at all?

[SugarFree]

It's not just you. It's like they fired the squirrels and replaced them with a narcoleptic howler monkey.

[MNG]

narcoleptic howler monkey.

Hmm, neat image.

[The Art-P.O.G.]

plus 1

[The Other Kevin]

I noticed that too.

[ed]

Maybe Reason has decided on offering service only 5 days a week.

[P Brooks]

At the risk of appearing close-minded, this:

On Sunday, a handful of San Antonio Coffee Partiers joined a small MoveOn.org rally

is pretty much all I need to know.

[Mike Laursen]

That's the exact sentence in the article where I stopped reading, too.

[Mike Laursen]

By the way, if MoveOn.org is involved, wouldn't it be fair to call that, oh ... "astroturfing"?

[The Art-P.O.G.]

Yes.

[BakedPenguin]

UPS & FedEx don't deliver on Saturdays, do they? The one thing I'd say that would be a bigger help to the USPS bottom line would be to stop subsidizing junk mail, but the "direct mail" lobby has powerful allies...

[Ska]

There is Saturday delivery for both, but it comes at a premium.

[J sub D]

Junk mail subsidizes first class delivery. It sucks to have to toss most of it, but it keeps the price of the letter to Grandma, who refuses to use that newfangled series of tubes, down.

[Dagny T.]

Die, USPS. The only thing worse than your total inability to track packages is The Postman.

[brotherben]

Pro Lib shouldn't be surprised that I enjoyed that film. (maybe it's the man-crush on kevin costner)

[MNG]

Oh, the movie. Heh, sorry missed that reference (and, thankfully from what I hear, the film itself).

[Citizen Nothing]

MNG also capitalizes The Traffic Cop, The BMV Drone, The Tax Man, The Code Enforcement Officer. It's a respect thing.

[Lisa Simpson]

The only thing worse than your total inability to track packages is The Postman.

Wow, this movie really sucks!

[MNG]

"The only thing worse than your total inability to track packages is The Postman."

Wow, that's bitter, can't you just get your wife out of the house when he comes by?

[Dagny T.]

Kevin Costner is more upsetting than adultery.

[The Art-P.O.G.]

LOL, he makes some good movies. And some that are just inexplicable.

[SugarFree]

Dag,

Did MNG call you a guy or a lesbian in a civil union? I'm confused.

[Citizen Nothing]

Just pick up your mail at your doctor's office.

[P Brooks]

Free unlimited mail delivery is my right as an American!

[Cabeza de Vaca]

As a former USPS employee I can say the USPS is a very poorly ran organization. Cutting back on Saturday delivery isn't going to save the post office money. It's going to speed up the process of corporations & indivdiual customers converting to online billing. Which has been a major factor in the USPS financial loses.

[Cabeza de Vaca]

As a former USPS employee I can say the USPS is a very poorly ran organization. Cutting back on Saturday delivery isn't going to save the post office money. It's going to speed up the process of corporations & indivdiual customers converting to online billing. Which has been a major factor in the USPS financial loses.

[Pablo]

I can NEVER go to the post office and get something from a person behind the counter without waiting at least 15-20 minutes. There is just one post office in my area that has self-service stamp machines and those self-service scales which take your debit card, weight your package, and print out a postage sticker so you can send your package yourself instead of having to wait in line. From what I've seen, probably 90% of the poor slobs in lines at post offices just want to get stamps or mail packages. Why aren't these machines in every post office? Wait, I know, too many jobs eliminated.

[Chinny Chin Chin]

My local post office installed one of the self-service scales. They then assigned an employee to stand beside the self-service machine and help customers push the buttons.

They weren't going to let no durned machine eliminate no jobs!

[Voros McCracken]

To be fair the grocery store does the same thing with the self checkouts. However that one person monitors four to six lines instead of just manning one, so there is obvious savings there.

[brotherben]

Boise toy gun incident. Does the second paragragh confuse anyone else or is it my weak mind?

[Citizen Nothing]

The former does not preclude the later, brotherb.

[The Art-P.O.G.]

R.C.'z law hit 'em up hard.

[P Brooks]

The kid's parents took a vote, so it's cool.

Excellent.

[Some dude]

Depending how you look at it, you could say the Democrats are on track to set a filibuster record. A new high in partisanship and uncompromise.

[P Brooks]

The Boise toy gun guy sounds like he was looking for a warm place to sleep.

[brotherben]

P Brooks, your refusal to nest comments may be seen by some as a tyranny of the minority.

[P Brooks]

We are so used to having to revere the Founders that we can't just point out their screw-ups. Government's legitimacy derives from the consent of the governed, and consent is best determined by majority. Every other way is tyranny of the minority, which is numerically by definition more unfair.

I heard violins when I read that. Sad violins. Sticky, gooey, syrupy, lugubrious violins.

Try not to think of it as tyranny of the minority. Think of it as a few of the lemmings looking around and saying, "Are you SURE this is the right road?"

[Mike Laursen]

+1 if you came up with "lugubrious" without using a thesaurus.

[Clich? Bandit]

Conditional +s...not sure if that is allowed. we better check the rule book.

DRINK!

[Mike Laursen]

Just compile it and run it, and see if it works.

[spambot]

I was glad for that filabuster when the Democrats used it so bravely to stop the Patriot Act. OH WAIT!!!!!

[P Brooks]

I shall endeavor to persevere.

[brotherben]

I shall endeavor to persevere.

you and Lone Watie.

[R C Dean]

Government's legitimacy derives from the consent of the governed, and consent is best determined by majority.

You mean, the majority necessary to amend the Constitution, right, MNG?

Every other way is tyranny of the minority, which is numerically by definition more unfair.

How unfair of the sheep to complain about the democratic decision of two wolves to have it for dinner!

[MNG]

"How unfair of the sheep to complain about the democratic decision of two wolves to have it for dinner!"

And how boring and sad this example is since what would really be more unfair is to have one wolf decide to eat two sheep...Hence my point goofy.

[R C Dean]

Glad to see you are willing to explicitly confirm that democracy consists of two wolves and a sheep deciding on what to have for dinner.

[MNG]

Wow, you don't see the fallacy in that reasoning? Incredible...

[Nick]

I think it is fascinating to hear MNG of all people say blacks the minority should shut the fuck up and do what whitey the majority tells them to do.

[Nick]

Ugh. strikethrough fail. Figure it out.

[MNG]

Er, yeah, because that is exactly what I sm saying.

Don't know much about analogies, eh?

[Nick]

You're saying the minority should acquiesce to the will of the majority and I'm saying I can't believe it. You think the minority is being tyrannical because they are trying to stop the majority from being tyrannical. You've lost it, man. This is your worst argument in a long time.

[MNG]

You think I said that all minorities everywhere should acquiesce to the will of all majorities everywhere? Can you point out where I said that? I thought we were talking about the procedures and structure of the US Senate.

[MNG]

Because if that is what we are talking about I do think that represenation should reflect population and that procedures like the filibuster which enable legislative minorities to block legislative majorities are indefensible.

[Nick]

In a country with this many differences, 50% +1 really should dominate? Why? I understand what you are saying, but I don't understand why you think it's acceptable considering the power the government holds over every person in this country. By suggesting that the whims of government of 50% +1 should not be hampered by 50% -1 you could easily lead us to a point where my phrasing of your position holds true. I don't think my analysis of your position is off base. The dramatic language was intended to wake you up to the dangers of what you are advocating.

[P Brooks]

Just wait 'til the Republicans win control of the Congress, and promptly commence sitting on their hands, and doing nothing, nothing, nothing!

Oh, won't that be grand?

Delusion, or sarcasm?

You decide...

[P Brooks]

+1 if you came up with "lugubrious" without using a thesaurus.

*places "+1" on mantel*

[Mike Laursen]

Congratulations! An engraved certificate that you can show off to your mom is coming in the mail.

[Johnny Longtorso]

Troubled banking industry sharply reduced lending in 2009
...But Bair said that the vast majority of the lending decline was the result of cutbacks by the nation's largest banks, which have tightened qualification standards for borrowers and increased the proportion of money that they hold in reserve against unexpected losses.

"Large banks do need to do a better job of stepping up to the plate here," Bair said. ...

[Mike M.]

I think I may possibly have a new hero, and his name is senator Jim Bunning. He is obviously driving all the right scumbags in the liberal media crazy, which means he's on the right track with what he's doing.

If he can force the layoff of even a couple of thousand worthless government bureaucrats, the country will owe him a debt of gratitude.

[SugarFree]

If the majority vote of commenters came down in favor of MNG shutting the fuck up, would he?

[JW]

If?

[MNG]

SF
I've told you before that a properly sized pair of panties would prevent you from getting so much sand in your vagina...

[SugarFree]

I see what you did there. Even though I am man, you suggested that I wear women's underwear and have female genitalia instead of male genitalia.

Hilarious.

[Mike M.]

Of course not. He would just continue to troll under different handles, which he does a lot anyway.

[P Brooks]

If the majority vote of commenters came down in favor of MNG shutting the fuck up, would he?

If he did, he eventually would attain mythic status, and people would recall him fondly as a "worthy" debater, and want him to come back.

[MNG]

BTW I'm all for substantive and procedural rights, say in the Constitution, that limit what majorities can do. Of course that does not detract from my position that it is wrong for a legislature to be structured in a way that does not apportion represenation by population, not my opposition to a procedural practice used in the operation of the legislature that allows minorities to block majorities. But I can see how simple minds get all 'fused (ooga ooga lookie, see how he says blocking the majority is bad, therefore he must be for majorities having no limits of any kind!)

[R C Dean]

Maybe I'm misremembering, MNG, but weren't you calling for a law requiring political ads by corporations to be approved by a supermajority of stockholders?

So your support of simple majority rule depends on whether you approve of what the majority wants to do?

[MNG]

There is a big difference between a corporation and how its policy should be made and a legislature.

[Probot]

Please. JUST SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU USELESS CUNT.

[R C Dean]

Indeed there is a big difference. The one is a voluntary private organization making decisions on how to dispose of its own property.

The other sets state policy that affects hundreds of millions of lives enforced by armies of bureaucrats and armed law enforcement agents.

Remind me again why supermajorities are such a bad idea for the latter, and such a peachy idea for the former?

[Fluffy]

This is absolutely absurd.

You justified your position on the legislative procedure question by reference to the principle of majority rule.

Now you're backing away from that moronic position, not in the honorable way of just saying you spoke hastily, but by saying, "Oh, yeah, that whole part where I said it was a principle? I didn't mean it was a principle. I mean majority rule is good where I like it and not good where I don't. So even though other stuff violates the principle I invoked, I still like that other stuff."

Typical.

[Probot]

BTW I'm all for substantive and procedural rights, say in the Constitution, that limit what majorities can do. Of course that does not detract from my position that it is wrong for a legislature to be structured in a way that does not apportion represenation by population, not my opposition to a procedural practice used in the operation of the legislature that allows minorities to block majorities. But I can see how simple minds get all 'fused (ooga ooga lookie, see how he says blocking the majority is bad, therefore he must be for majorities having no limits of any kind!)
a Shit Facktory.

FIFY

[Bob Smith]

Does the USPS union contract give it the right to reduce salaries if it eliminates a service day? Can it reduce benefits too? How about reducing pensions to a lower base salary level? I'd bet the answers to all these questions is no.

Unlike everybody else in the universe, USPS's automation programs didn't save them any money in the end, so I suspect eliminating Saturday service will not save them any meaningful dollars, especially since 1/2 of their number retire in 10 years or less with gold-plated pensions. That's going to kill them in the long run.

[wizard of oz books]

With many new announcement about the wizard of oz movies in the news, you might want to consider starting to obtain collectible Wizard of Oz books at http://www.RareOzBooks.com