02 Mar 10
Originally posted by joneschrhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borking#Bork_as_verb
Now we can't even pay unemployment benefits without a republican filibuster?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100302/ap_on_go_co/us_budget_impasse
Bork as verb
According to columnist William Safire, the first published use of bork as a verb was "possibly" The Atlanta Journal-Constitution of August 20, 1987. Safire defines to bork by reference "to the way Democrats savaged Ronald Reagan's nominee, the Appeals Court judge Robert H. Bork, the year before."[18] Perhaps the best known use of the verb to bork occurred in July 1991 at a conference of the National Organization for Women in New York City. Feminist Florynce Kennedy addressed the conference on the importance of defeating the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court. She said, "We're going to bork him. We're going to kill him politically ... This little creep, where did he come from?"[19] Thomas was subsequently confirmed after one of the most divisive confirmation fights in Supreme Court history.
In March 2002, the Oxford English Dictionary added an entry for the verb Bork as U.S. political slang, with this definition: "To defame or vilify (a person) systematically, esp. in the mass media, usually with the aim of preventing his or her appointment to public office; to obstruct or thwart (a person) in this way."[20]
This usage appears unrelated to the computer slang term "borked" or "borken", which is a deliberate typo for "broken".[21]
02 Mar 10
Originally posted by zeeblebotBoth Bork and Thomas got straight up and down votes (though the Democrats certainly had enough votes to filibuster either one), so I'm not exactly sure what your point is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borking#Bork_as_verb
Bork as verb
According to columnist William Safire, the first published use of bork as a verb was "possibly" The Atlanta Journal-Constitution of August 20, 1987. Safire defines to bork by reference "to the way Democrats savaged Ronald Reagan's nominee, the Appeals Court judge Robert H. Bork, the year ...[text shortened]... r slang term "borked" or "borken", which is a deliberate typo for "broken".[21]
02 Mar 10
1 edit
Given his definition ""To defame or vilify (a person) systematically, esp. in the mass media, usually with the aim of preventing his or her appointment to public office;"
I guess he's trying to say the media is demonizing Bunning in attempt to get him out of office. But that's a little out of touch given that Bunning already announced he didn't intend to run for re-election in 2010.
02 Mar 10
2 edits
Originally posted by joneschrIt's not a "filibuster". He's objecting (withholding his consent) to a unanimous consent request because he wants to know how the bill will be paid for. If Reid doesn't want to let one Senator hold up the bill perhaps he shouldn't try to pass it in a way that requires all 100 of them to agree to it without debate.
Now we can't even pay unemployment benefits without a republican filibuster?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100302/ap_on_go_co/us_budget_impasse
03 Mar 10
Originally posted by no1marauderthat this partisan stuff has been going on for a long time.
Both Bork and Thomas got straight up and down votes (though the Democrats certainly had enough votes to filibuster either one), so I'm not exactly sure what your point is.
do you think it was politer in the old days (pre-Bork)?
03 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by joneschrhttp://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/23/obama-annuounces-stimulus-oversight-board/
Now we can't even pay unemployment benefits without a republican filibuster?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100302/ap_on_go_co/us_budget_impasse
Here is an article stating that Obama wants a "pay as you go" policy in Congress. In other words, if the money ain't there then we ain't spend'in any. Of course, this is after the President balloons the deficit to unimaginable levels. I think this is what Bunning and company are pointing towards. He knows that his efforts are fruitless. Eventually the spend thrifts will prevail and continue spending without a plan to pay for such spending, but at least he can make a stand to prove a point which is that Obama and company are a bunch of hypocritical empty suits who have no intention of being fiscally responsible. Bunning has nothing to lose since he will not be seeking reelection.
03 Mar 10
Originally posted by whodeyI will add, Obama not only has no intention of fiscal responsibility, he is seeking even more entitlements through NHC and his jobs bill etc.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/23/obama-annuounces-stimulus-oversight-board/
Here is an article stating that Obama wants a "pay as you go" policy in Congress. In other words, if the money ain't there then we ain't spend'in any. Of course, this is after the President balloons the deficit to unimaginable levels. I think this is what Bunning ...[text shortened]... fiscally responsible. Bunning has nothing to lose since he will not be seeking reelection.
03 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76Exactly. And whodey was called on it a day or three ago. And yet he persists.
nationalized healthcare; which is a misnomer, as that's not what the bill purports to do.
Thread 2390813 page 2.