Uncivil Discourse

Because civility is overrated.

Friday, May 20, 2005

Nice Rules You Got There, Be A Shame If Somethin' Happened To Them

Dogfucker Santorum:

[What the Democrats are doing is] the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942 saying, 'I'm in Paris. How dare you invade me. How dare you bomb my city? It's mine.' This is no more the rule of the senate than it was the rule of the senate before not to filibuster.
(from Talking Points Memo).

First, let's say this: fuck Rick Santorum, right up his dumb ass. Doesn't he quite get that people who hop on board a "pre-emptive" invasion of countries predicated on made up charges shouldn't be comparing other people to Hitler? Probably not, the same way he couldn't understand that Terri Schiavo couldn't swallow (a point even Sean Hannity grasped). So fuck 'im.

Second, the Rude Pundit used a nice analogy yesterday to describe what these shitheads are doing:
In other words, let's say you play chess with the same person every day for 100 years without either of you castling. You never had any agreement you would never castle. You just never did it. Then one day, you decide to get out of a sticky situation by doing the whole rook-king do-si-do. Sure, your opponent may get upset, but fuck him. It's the rules. Tell him to shove his bishop up his ass and move on.
Except now Santorum's not just getting upset because you're castling, he's claiming there's no fucking rule allowing you to castle, it's just something people let people do.

Being as it's Rick Santorum, he's completely full of shit. If you look closely, what king of all motherfucking rules 22 says is
"Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?" And if that question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn -- except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting -- then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of.

So what is it exactly that these shitheads are trying to do? They're trying to set a precedent that it takes 51, not 67, votes to change the rules however the Senate Majority Leader wants. Look at the WaPo's script for how this would play out.

See the fucking shells moving? They're not changing the specific rule. If the Catbutcher had gotten 67 votes to say "Your monkey asses can't filibuster Priscilla Owen any more," that's one thing. That's what all the media motherfuckers are saying this is, just a change to prohibit judicial filibusters. But no, as usual, they have their heads shoved so far up their asses they're swimming in stomach acid. This is much, much fucking worse. This precedent says that any rule can be changed as the majority leader wishes so long as he has 51 votes. "Nuclear option" indeed. As Josh Marshall put it in this fantastic post, "This is about power; and, to them, the rules quite simply mean nothing."

Fuck history, fuck the rules, fuck the Constitution. This is a completely arbitrary, but far-reaching precedent that's being set here by these shitheads, which demonstrates, yet again, their complete lack of respect for, well, anything. History, from day one, has been shat on (remember all those goddamned stories about how Gore should just go into the corner and shut up because, after all, even Nixon was a good boy when he lost a close race?). The rules have always been a crock; remember Florida in 2000? And the Constitution's been nothing more than dusty old piece of parchment. They'll tell you it's all about your point of view, while saying postmodernism's the currency of the goddamned liberal elites. Foucault is somewhere cackling with pleasure at everything this group does, especially as more and more of their prominent supporters turn out to be sexually repressed deviant fucks.

Digby also notes that we're going to see a flood of whines from the idiotic masses on the right about how Byrd made a Hitler reference so everything's ok. Read it. That's a fucking proper historical reference. Nobody is being compared to Hitler, he's talking about how arbitrary rules changes can be. Now, of course Byrd chose Hitler, of all the plethora of examples of this type of shit, to cause a stir. But I suppose it's hard for these shitheads, who are too busy getting papercuts on their dicks from trying to screw the Constitution as many ways as they can, to understand that someone's actually trying to use history to make a goddamned point, not just as something to ejaculate all over.