Oh. You're wrong. The proximate cause of their complaint is Harry Reid. If they complain about anyone other than Harry Reid and the nuclear option they are intellectually dishonest or ignorant of reality hence the STFU

Oh. You're full of crap. If someone sees a problem, they should be free to speak up about it. The fact that someone else who claims to identify with the same political ideology did something similar years ago doesn't strip that right.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

They are complaining about the outcome and blaming the wrong person. They can bitch and moan all they want about the path Harry put the Senate on

That's a little kid's answer. Don't yell at me Mom, Billy did something similar two years ago, so I'm not to blame for what I did yesterday. STFU.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Look up proximate cause

Look up personal responsibility.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I own my position because it is rationally grounded. Guessing you didn't look up Polemis Wagon Mound or palsgraf

WW, man, you sometimes have some good points to make but you need to lay off the pseudo-legalese BS. This isn't a negligence case. Palsgraf, proximate cause, elements of tort, none of it has shit to do with the underlying point. Same goes for your predilection for the phrase "state with specificity" in various threads over time- the LR isn't an M&A diligence or a litigation interrogatory. It just makes you sound like a tool with a law degree trying to sound fancy.

As to the substance, I'm with slowguy on this one, regardless of the fact that Reid helped push us down the path.

No shit it's not negligence. Reid changed the rule. The asshats should blame him and no one else. I like with specificity because it leaves no room for deviation (at least I don't use upon information and belief or now comes windywave by and through himself.) To say specifically would usually be poor grammar.

What exactly is your and Slowguy's beef? That I think they shouldn't be complaining or its Harry's fault?

Witnesseth:

My beef is with the "don't complain/stfu" piece. I think anyone, Rep or Dem, who is 'intellectually honest' (to use another of your pet phrases) will acknowledge that both political parties have been driving a deepening partisanship in recent years, and that it's a problem in the medium to long term. The nuclear option evolution is one example of that, and while Reid took one of the most recent steps in exacerbating the problem, that should not preclude people in his own party from acknowledging the general problem and trying to find a way to solve it.

Acknowledging was not what they were doing, blaming was what they were doing.

oh you're paying witness now? can I get an amen from the choir?

Whenever I get a draft agreement from opposing counsel with "witnesseth" at the top between the preamble and the definitions I know I'm dealing with a tool with a law degree who's trying to sound fancy.

I'll aver that is tool tastic or should I take judicial notice (yes yes I know I'm not a judge)

Just don't "concur", which everyone says when they mean they agree, not recognizing that a concurrence entails a different logical basis for arriving at the end result with which they agree

Your position is that because some Democrat did something bad several years ago, any Democrat in the LR is now supposed to shut up about Republicans doing bad things now. That's not rationally based. As I said, it's the mindset of a child.

Either you think the use of the "nuclear option" was a bad idea or you don't. There's no obligation for someone to keep their mouths shut about it just because a Democrat used a similar tactic in the past. And, as I said, the insistence that Democrats STFU about what they (and quite a few Republicans) feel is a bad trend and a harmful action by the Senate is exactly the kind of simplistic and childish partisan thinking that has gotten us in this situation to begin with.


Guessing you didn't look up Thermopolae or Fractal Geometry. Are we just listing random things we don't think the other person looked up?

This is not torts class, and quite frankly, you should stay away from faux legal arguments. It wasn't that long ago you had your ass handed to you by some of the actual lawyers in the LR. It was embarrassing, and I'd have thought you'd want to avoid a repeat.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I rarely agree with people for example the post below the one I'm responding to

You spelled thermopylae wrong.

I'm annoyed that they are blaming the wrong perosn. I think the nuclear option is dumb but it was foreseeable it would be used.

It's not a faux or even legitimate legal argument it's a concept. Here:

Reid used the nuclear option in a limited capacity. It then became likely that it would be used again.

To translate if we flipped a nuke at Minsk should we be surprised if Norfolk disappears in a mushroom cloud? Is it out fault for shooting first or the Russians for doing the same thing.

The concept of proximate cause is not faux in and of itself. It's faux in that it has no bearing on this discussion.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

You're right. If Reid hadn't changed the rules the GOP majority leader would have. Reid changing the rules had no follow on effect.

If Sen Reid hadn't changed the rules in 2013, maybe the Republicans wouldn't have used the nuclear option this year, or maybe they would have anyway. Of course the actions of the Democrats in 2013 had impact, as did Sen Frist's actions earlier when he threatened the use of the nuclear option on behalf of Republicans, as did the actions of the Republicans when they refused to even consider Marrick Garland's nomination.

All of that is separate from you trying to frame every single item of discussion as if it was a community college law course debate. As I said, this isn't tort class. No one is trying to establish damages or determine legal causation.

And even that is separate from the childishness of your position. Most people learn that two wrongs don't make a right when they're like,...five. This is not a zero sum situation. There's blame to go around, and just because a Democrat bears some responsibility doesn't mean a Republican doesn't bear some of it as well. Sen Reid's choice to exercise the nuclear option didn't subsequently require Republicans to use it again. They could have acted like grown-ups, and put the preservation of our functioning legislative branch ahead of partisan gamesmanship, but they chose not to. Harry Reid is not to blame for their choice.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Banana republic.....let the peanut games begin....

You're trying to belittle me by mocking me instead of addressing your failure to grasp a simple concept. At no point have I even implied this is a legal issue of any kind. I have just attempted to convey the concept of proximate cause i.e. the root cause of something through your thick skull and apparently I have been unsuccessful. So be

I think it's foolish to blame the Republican for using the nuclear option when all they did was follow the precedent set by Reid. If you go back I don't think I have opined on the actual usage of it but instead the hypocrisy of certain posters on here blaming the GOP for what is obviously a democrat created issue. Read the USA today article I posted (you probably didn't) it is very prescient.

It most assuredly does have bearing. To blame the GOP now without accounting for Reid originally changing the rule is moronic.

I fully understand the concept, although I'm shocked that the guy telling LR Democrats to STFU would be so sensitive to a little mockery.


Then you might try not insisting that people use legal concepts to frame the discussion, or maybe not citing legal cases as defense for your position. Just a thought.


Proximate cause is a legal concept that applies to torts. Root cause and proximate cause are not the same thing.


And I think it's foolish and childish to give them a pass for bad behavior just because someone else behaved badly in the past, which I've explained to you several times.

Moreover, I think it's childish for you to tell people to STFU just because you think you've identified a different bad act in the past. Why are you ignoring Sen Frist's threatening of the nuclear option to get his way, well before Sen Reid used it? Why are you ignoring the Republicans' treatment of Marrick Garland's nomination? Because you simply want to put the blame on a Democrat, so you can shit on LR liberals. Like I said, childish.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)