Anyone else have a "problem" with the "going nuclear" language?

[Postman]

Why are they couching the proposed squelching of the filibuster as "going nuclear"?

I realize it is just a figure of speech but doesn't it cheapen what "going nuclear" really is all about?

I also have a problem with describing the WTC attack site as "ground zero". As if the United States had suffered the same catastrophic destruction as Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

Gimme a break.

[cynatnite]

1. It sounds like the country will be destroyed

I don't care for the term at all. It's fearmongering and is reactionary.

I've never minded 'ground zero' when it comes to WTC, but I do see your point. It's a valid one.

[bridgit]

2. sure, it conditions 'we the people' to accept the concept...

applied on far lesser terms from a group of people who, imo, are conditioning the world for just that on a larger scale

[in_cog_ni_to]

3. Well, since the repukes DETEST the term "Nuclear Option"

we should use it as often as possible. The repuke's Trent Lott coined the phrase, btw, but they're trying to run from it because it isn't helping their cause. I think WE, as devoted, caring, dedicated Dems should continue to piss them off buy using it whenever possible. :evilgrin:

[billbuckhead]

5. We should call it "Trent Lott's nuclear option"

Bill Frist doesn't use it cause he doesn't want us to know how bad it is.

[in_cog_ni_to]

9. Yes. All of our Senators should make sure

everyone knows who coined the term and exactly how it will literally destroy the Senate.

Trent Lott's Nuclear Option, Trent Lott's Nuclear Option, Trent Lott's Nuclear Option, Trent Lott's Nuclear Option, Trent Lott's Nuclear Option, Trent Lott's Nuclear Option, Trent Lott's Nuclear Option, Trent Lott's Nuclear Option, Trent Lott's Nuclear Option, Trent Lott's Nuclear Option. :evilgrin:

I think I shall make a suggestion to Senators Durbin and Obama when I email them about the new Jeff Gannon/Secret Service story.

[ProgressiveConn]

4. Not at all.

The nuclear option is crossing the rubicon. It should be expressed in the most dire of language.

[deacon]

6. they are nuking democracy, so i guess it's appropriate n/t

[K-W]

7. I dont see how either use is innapropriate.

And using the word nuclear to illustrate the severity of the action the republicans will take is spot on.

[Spider Jerusalem]

8. Eh. It's yet another sign of the relentless dumbing-down of discourse.

Every issue is distilled into something that makes for a simple and catchy sound-bite. And Americans in general and Republicans in particular seem to have a special love of violent metaphor, which I would say says something about our national character or lack thereof...

[CrispyQ]

10. They should call it the 'nukular' option.

[beam me up scottie]

11. At least our side can pronounce it.

nt

[JoseC]

12. Constitutional Option

Thats better, just have a real filibuster and not the fake kind. Then after that the Senate votes, simple nuff.

[Norquist Nemesis]

13. Odd...this is precisely what the news said they're changing it to

Just this morning, there was a brief report about the language being changed to this from the 'nuclear option'. Apparently, the polls are telling Republicans that "constitutional" is more pleasing than "nuclear". It sounds to me like Frank's Framing (again).

[Walt Starr]

14. It's perfectly desciptive of what the Fascists want

Mutually assurred destruction.