"Minor Revolution"

[kentuck]

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/09/minor_revolution.php#more?ref=fpblg

<snip>
Let's get out ahead of this. Republicans are saying that if Democrats go the 'reconciliation' -- i.e., 51 votes rules -- route there will be a "minor revolution." That's fine. Hyperbole is a bipartisan indulgence.

But I'm seeing more and more reporters referring to reconciliation as the "nuclear option." The reference is to the 2005 cycle in which Republicans threatened to abolish the filibuster to push through their Supreme Court appointments. As an aside, the Republican leadership didn't just threaten. They used the threat, in essence, to force the Dems to give away and accept President Bush's nominations.

In any case, the comparison is baseless.

What the Republicans were threatening was to throw out the rule book mid-session to force through their agenda. (As a matter of substance, I think the filibuster might well need reforming. But it shouldn't be done mid-session. If it's done, it should be post-dated out into the future, far enough out so neither party will be sure whose ox will be getting gored.) What the Democrats are talking about is using an existing procedure which has been on the books for more than twenty years for use on certain budget-related legislation. And has been used repeatedly. Most notably in recent years for the Bush tax cuts.

There is a set of criteria for judging what can be pushed through the reconciliation process. And, as we discussed earlier today, a health reform bill may have to be significantly modified to have it pass muster.

Reporters who repeat this should be called on it.

[Captain Hilts]

1. Okay, revolt then. Go ahead. nt

[Froward69]

6. I simpy find them Revolting...

I couldn't resist. :)

I do agree with you. I wanna hear them scream, throw a temper tantrum and cry.

[fascisthunter]

2. who the hell is unreccing this?

[Javaman]

4. the token trolls. nt

[SidneyCarton]

3. So be it.

They want a revolution, let them try and start one. Half of their army are senior citizens and "keyboard commandos." The first will desert when they realize that the shooting is going to go on after 5pm, and the second will leave when they realize that they are being shot at with real bullets, there are no cheetos, and they don't have a bathroom their mother just cleaned to crap in.

[Javaman]

5. Like someone wrote regarding a "revolution"...

The revolution will last all of 3 minutes.

an untrained army doesn't work in a cohesive group nor do they know combat tactics.
-that's soldiering 101

an untrained army usually never stays put once contact is made. aka They ran.
-soldiers are trained to stay put and hold their ground.

an untrained army doesn't know how to conserve ammo.
-they will run out of bullets before the US Army fires a single shot.

And an untrained army doesn't have ammo centric weapons.
-There is a reason why the US army uses only 2 or 3 different weapons, because of soldier A runs short of ammo, he can get some more from soldier B.
-if moron revolution jerk A runs out of ammo, it's very doubtful that moron revolution jerk B will have a weapon of the same caliber to share with moron A.

There will always be a few straggles, but by the end of the 3 minute war, most of the morons will be rounded up and be put in zip-ties.