55-7 Gop Lose

[Richardols]

TPJCatholic:

My opinion of your views as stated here is that you show a lack of knowledge or understanding about what constitutes mortal sin.

Ah, this time, you say, “my opinion.” Don’t make accusations as if you were the One Possessor and Interpreter of The Truth.
I*

(3) Person “x” intentionally, willfully and with full knowledge steals the gum.

I did not disagree. I would argue that very few people make an pre-sin examination of conscience sufficient to totally fulfill those three conditions.

as I have said many times under the right circumstances stealing a single pack of gum can be a mortal sin.

As I agreed, and gave my own example to boot.

Jesus did not have tact when He said “go and sin no more…”

Please don’t compare yourself to Jesus Christ if you have a drop of humility about you.

 

[TPJCatholic]

richardols,

You know, I can go back and site all the things you have said to me that were really incredibly insulting, yet instead I have chosen all through this to ignore that stuff. I hope you can find it within you realize that everyone has a different way of saying things and that you have said many things that I can really take offense with.

You started this netire thing by calling my statements “Utter Nonsense,” yet now you are conceding that I have made valid points. Thank you for that concession.

I did not compare myself to Jesus, nor would I ever do such a thing. I merely used Jesus as an example, as we are all called to do.

 

[Richardols]

TPJCatholic:

richardols,

You know, I can go back and site all the things you have said to me that were really incredibly insulting, yet instead I have chosen all through this to ignore that stuff.

Have I insulted you? What do you mean by insult?

You started this netire thing by calling my statements “Utter Nonsense,” yet now you are conceding that I have made valid points. Thank you for that concession.

Yes, if one can be said to have full intent, full will, and full knowledge, then the conditions have been met, as you said.

 

[TPJCatholic]

richardols,

Yes, you have insulted me many times on this thread…yet I do not think you intended to do so…just as I did not intend to insult you. If we are going to have any Christian charity, then imo we must at least trust each other’s motives are honorable.

In the end I was merely making the point that “even” the act of stealing a pack of gum can be mortally sinful. It seems we both agree on that point, so perhaps we can move on.

 

[Ryan_King]

I figured that the GOP would not actually use the Constitutional option. As Senators, they are loath to give up their privileges, privileges they may themselves seek to use in the future. If they had to, the GOP would have abolished judicial filibusters; however, it does not surprise me that they compromised instead.

Ryan King

 

[Richardols]

Ryan King:

I figured that the GOP would not actually use the Constitutional option. As Senators, they are loath to give up their privileges, privileges they may themselves seek to use in the future. If they had to, the GOP would have abolished judicial filibusters; however, it does not surprise me that they compromised instead.

Ryan King

George Washington compared the Congress to a cup of tea. The House is the cup is where all the heat is, the Senate is the saucer where things are cooled down.

As it should be!

 

[rlg94086]

Ryan King:

I figured that the GOP would not actually use the Constitutional option. As Senators, they are loath to give up their privileges, privileges they may themselves seek to use in the future. If they had to, the GOP would have abolished judicial filibusters; however, it does not surprise me that they compromised instead.

Ryan King

I would adjust that to “…that they have compromised so far”. The option could still be exercised, and I’m guessing it will.

Robert.

 

[rlg94086]

Richardols:

George Washington compared the Congress to a cup of tea. The House is the cup is where all the heat is, the Senate is the saucer where things are cooled down.

As it should be!

I’m with you on that, but I think things will still be cooled down without judicial filibusters.

 

[Steve_Andersen]

Why the distinction between “judicial filibusters” and regular plain old vanilla filibusters?

One of the key issues of any assembly is balancing the right of a member to speak against the will of a majority
Many nations have different solutions to the this age-old dilemma

The American notion that a slight majority is needed to end debate is actually quite an elegant solution

Hasn’t anyone here watched “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”?

 

[rlg94086]

Steve Andersen:

Why the distinction between “judicial filibusters” and regular plain old vanilla filibusters?

One of the key issues of any assembly is balancing the right of a member to speak against the will of a majority
Many nations have different solutions to the this age-old dilemma

The American notion that a slight majority is needed to end debate is actually quite an elegant solution

Hasn’t anyone here watched “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”?

Wonderful movie! Except, they don’t filibuster like that anymore. They should, but there was…cue the music…a rule change :bigyikes:

As far as “the right of a member to speak against the will of a majority”, I don’t believe that right is outlined in the Constitution. However, I am not an expert, so I gladly invite someone to give the excerpt. If I understand it correctly, the filibuster was originally just a use of existing Senate rules regarding the requirements for a speaker to yield the floor.

Robert

 

[Steve_Andersen]

rlg94086:

…As far as “the right of a member to speak against the will of a majority”, I don’t believe that right is outlined in the Constitution. …

Article I section 5
" Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings,…"

thus who gets to speak and for how long is each house’s own business

 

[rlg94086]

Steve Andersen:

Article I section 5
" Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings,…"

thus who gets to speak and for how long is each house’s own business

Thanks Steve. Unfortunately, that has nothing to do with rights of the minority. It just bolsters my argument that the filibuster is easily expendable, because the Constitution grants the Senate the right to determine their own rules. They changed the nature of filibusters in the past, so why not do it again?

If they decide to use the Constitutional/Nuclear Option, I suspect they will keep it narrowly defined to the judicial confirmation process.

 

[Steve_Andersen]

They could do that, after all the House operates without a filibuster, and it might be argued that what was a useful tool when there were only 26 senators might have become unwieldy at 100, but I would like to think that the words enlightened self-interest mean something. Especially in the “senior” chamber

Historically one party may hold a majority in the Senate for decades. So the party that screws the minority out of its parliamentary tools today might be just be the toolless minority party tomorrow. Frisk should know better. I think he is just posturing for the folks at home for a 2008.

 

[Philip_P]

The filibuster is not in the Constitution, it’s true. The idea of keeping the separate branches in check, though, is clearly a very important part of the Constitution. I think the problem with removing the filibuster, now, is that it takes away an important check on the executive. Since the president’s party holds the Congress, and the GOP has become very good at maintaining disciplined unity, there’s a worry, that the Congress becomes just an extension of the White house.

Not exactly a strong argument for the filibuster, per se, unless someone is proposing it be allowed only when the same party controls both the executive and the legislative branches (a difficult, if not impossible rule). Still, I’d feel better about the whole filibuster debate if the executive branch hadn’t become so dang powerful over the last few decades.

 

[TPJCatholic]

philip,

I would say that with seven GOP Senate traitors joining the compromise, that its no longer accurate to say the GOP has a strict party unity. It is clear those seven GOP Senators will not side with the GOP in the highly controversial votes–they basically left their party when they joined that compromise. There are reasons the American public placed the GOP in power and those seven traitors just flipped their noses at the citizenry that elects them.

 

[Richardols]

TPJCatholic:

philip,

I would say that with seven GOP Senate traitors joining the compromise, that its no longer accurate to say the GOP has a strict party unity. It is clear those seven GOP Senators will not side with the GOP in the highly controversial votes–they basically left their party when they joined that compromise. There are reasons the American public placed the GOP in power and those seven traitors just flipped their noses at the citizenry that elects them.

Compromise is the very essence of how the Senate operates. When Democrats or Republicans decide that there is something to be gained by not taking an extreme position but by cooperating with their opposite numbers, they ought not to be labelled as traitors. Polarization is not a virtue, and indeed, the polarization we see today was not the norm in American politics among men of good will previously.

 

[rlg94086]

Philip P:

The filibuster is not in the Constitution, it’s true. The idea of keeping the separate branches in check, though, is clearly a very important part of the Constitution. I think the problem with removing the filibuster, now, is that it takes away an important check on the executive. Since the president’s party holds the Congress, and the GOP has become very good at maintaining disciplined unity, there’s a worry, that the Congress becomes just an extension of the White house.

The primary methods of keeping the separate branches in check are:

a) 2 senators/state, so the Senate is not subject to tyranny of the majority (I know that’s a non-constitutional term…many thanks to D’Toqueville) and small states don’t get screwed.

b) A judicial branch which is not elected and therefore not subject to the influence of re-election concerns.

c) The power of the Veto.

d) The ability of the legislative branch to override a veto with 2/3 majority

The fact that the electorate has approved a majority of Republicans in the House, Senate and Presidency, has nothing to do with separation of powers.

Still, I’d feel better about the whole filibuster debate if the executive branch hadn’t become so dang powerful over the last few decades.

Here I definitely agree. Too many executive orders! I don’t like that, regardless of the president’s party affiliation. As far as one party having too much power…that’s really up to the voters, isn’t it?

Regards,

Robert.