Rattle about Robert Byrd all you want. Fact remains, us liberals have nothing to apologize for. It was liberals who tried to stop the lynchings and conservatives who wouldn’t. The blood of thousands of innocents is on your hands, not mine.
(You don’t have a problem with me smearing all of you with one photo, do you, Roy?)
So you are on record now as not being against the TACTIC (since the Dems wasted time when the Republicans were in power in Congress)? You are only against the Republicans being BETTER at it than the Dems (i.e., wasting MORE time)?
Honestly, Oscar, have you ever thought of running for Congress? As a Republican?
Did I ever say a hint of a word about whether I was for against the TACTIC? And what “record” are you talking about?
Well, you were talking about “breaking the record” for filibusters. I assumed you: a) were aware of the record for filibusters, since you cited the fact, b) were aware that the previous “record” had been set by the Democrats, and c) weren’t commenting on the fact that the Democrats previous record wasn’t particularly shameful because you didn’t see it as particularly shameful. Do you? Were delaying tactics by the Democratic minority okay, and if so, why do you object to delaying tactics by the current Republican minority?
So you are on record now as not being against the TACTIC (?)
I responded “What record?”
You responded, “The record for filibusters.”
Well, that’s a little confusing. “I’m on the record for filibusters.” Hmmm, must be an internet thing.
Anyway, I was referring to the number of filibusters and I think you’re referring to the length of a filibuster.
Or no, rather, I don’t think I know what you’re referring to at all.
Oh. I see your confusion. When I say, “You are on record now..”, it is the same thing as saying, “You have just indicated...”. So you can interpret my statement above as “You have just indicated that you are not against the TACTIC”.
So, to clarify the issue, did you mean to indicate that delaying tactics were okay when the Democrats did it, but are not okay when the Republicans do it? (This is a pretty clear question that you shouldn’t have a problem understanding.)
I remember the time Duncan Hunter (R Nutcase) introduced a resolution he voted against. I’m not sure if he was wasting time or just acting like himself.
Senate Dems opposing Papal resolution
A resolution honoring the Pope on his visit to America is being held by Senate Democrats. The resolution had been expected to pass by unanimous consent, but someone in the Democrat Party has a problem with the following language:
Whereas Pope Benedict XVI has spoken approvingly of the vibrance of religious faith in the United States, a faith nourished by a constitutional commitment to religious liberty that neither attempts to strip our public spaces of religious expression nor denies the ultimate source of our rights and liberties
Whereas Pope Benedict XVI has spoken out for the weak and vulnerable, witnessing to the value of each and every human life.
“...a faith nourished by a constitutional commitment to religious liberty that neither attempts to strip our public spaces of religious expression nor denies the ultimate source of our rights and liberties.”
I would hope my Congressperson or Senator would object to that language. However long it took to strip it out I would consider time well spent.
