Comments | ragingemu: When exactly did the language become so polarized?

ragingemu

When exactly did the language become so polarized?

Jan 10, 2006 17:42

When exactly did "filibuster" become "nuclear option" and attempts to break a filibuster by majority action a "call for an up or down vote"? I assume it happened somewhat recently, as I've only heard such language used widely for the past year or two. It's obviously and attempt to polarize the technique of filibustering - no matter who first came ( Read more... )

politics, security: public

Comments 6

yehoshua January 10 2006, 23:28:48 UTC

My understanding of the "nuclear option" isn't that it's a euphemism for filibuster. Quite the contrary, it's a ploy threatening to change the cloture rules so that a filibuster can be ended by a simple majority vote.

ragingemu January 10 2006, 23:34:14 UTC

Doesn't that go against the very definition of a filibuster?

yehoshua January 10 2006, 23:39:56 UTC

Yes, but the wing-nuts don't care. They want their lives to be easy and the Democrats' lives to be hard, and they don't care that, if they do this and get away with it, this will someday be used as a cudgel with which to beat them about the head and shoulders when they eventually lose the majority.

ragingemu January 14 2006, 23:48:13 UTC

Schneier phrased it well:"The whole point of laws and contracts is to protect us when the parties don't trust each other. It's not enough [to trust the current] government … [you have] to believe that when the [opposition is] in power that [your] rights are just as protected…

… When reading through a contract, don't think about how much you like the other person who's signing it; imagine how the contract will protect you if you become enemies."

- http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/12/limitations_on_1.html

Maybe more people on the hill need to read security blogs. :-P

Thread 6