Bull

The earlier vote, 87 for, indicates that he would have lost if he demanded a quorum, and he damned well knew it. What principle would have been supported by demanding a quorum? It wouldn't change the outcome. His position was clear. But it would have made a lot of politicians that he works with lose face, which would make working with them harder in the future.

So it is a futile gesture that would alienate people. Doing that is useless and will make it harder to win the battles that he has a chance on. You don't stay in politics as long as he did without knowing that.

Don't think of this as a chance to establish himself as a man of principle. Think about this in terms of, If I was trying to get things done in this organization, what would I do in this situation? OK, I admit that that is pretty much the opposite of being a man of principle. But this is politics, and I know that you're too good politically to fight a lost battle too hard, no matter how much it pisses you off.

On the other hand, what a negotiating chip! You want me not to call a quorum? What will you pay me to do that? I wonder what bone they had to throw him...

Cheers,
Ben

Post #150,931 by broomberg 4/12/04 7:33:58 PM Reply	Bull He could have demanded a quorum. He didn't. He made a deal. You fell for it.
Post #150,940 by ben_tilly 4/12/04 9:49:21 PM Reply	Choose your battles The earlier vote, 87 for, indicates that he would have lost if he demanded a quorum, and he damned well knew it. What principle would have been supported by demanding a quorum? It wouldn't change the outcome. His position was clear. But it would have made a lot of politicians that he works with lose face, which would make working with them harder in the future. So it is a futile gesture that would alienate people. Doing that is useless and will make it harder to win the battles that he has a chance on. You don't stay in politics as long as he did without knowing that. Don't think of this as a chance to establish himself as a man of principle. Think about this in terms of, If I was trying to get things done in this organization, what would I do in this situation? OK, I admit that that is pretty much the opposite of being a man of principle. But this is politics, and I know that you're too good politically to fight a lost battle too hard, no matter how much it pisses you off. On the other hand, what a negotiating chip! You want me not to call a quorum? What will you pay me to do that? I wonder what bone they had to throw him... Cheers, Ben To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act - [link\|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20\|Nebraska Supreme Court]
Post #150,943 by broomberg 4/12/04 10:46:50 PM Reply	Oh, I agree I SAID he made a deal. I'm just annoyed by people such as mmoffit who blindly praise his oratory without understanding what it is there for. It is there to con people such as him. His resounding "NO" was totally meaningless in the context of the vote. He was playing to the rubes back at home. He could have forced them all there, to be recorded, so that he could call them on it later in future election battles. He chose to trade that away for something that we will never know.
Post #150,945 by ben_tilly 4/12/04 10:58:14 PM Reply	"made a deal" ne "sold you out" I define being sold out as being betrayed for a price. 'd prefer to see an effective politician who agrees with me with a lost battle he didn't suicide on than an ineffective politician with a lost battle that he did suicide on. (The same goes for soldiers and real battles.) Therefore declining to futily limit his ability to act does not constitute a betrayal. With no betrayal, there was no selling me out. Cheers, Ben To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act - [link\|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20\|Nebraska Supreme Court]
Post #150,948 by Another Scott 4/12/04 11:06:28 PM Reply	But Byrd had little to lose either way. He's Senator for Life, and he's made enough remarks about Bush and the Republican leadership that everyone knows where he stands. He could have called for a vote without much damage if he wanted. It's not as if he was a freshman senator who had to worry about re-election.... As you say, he knew the result was a foregone conclusion. It wasn't worth the effort to call a roll vote, but wouldn't have been "suicide" if he had. IMO. Cheers, Scott.
Post #150,995 by ben_tilly 4/13/04 10:49:33 AM Reply	What I meant by suicide... He would have pissed off people he has to try to get cooperation with, and pissed off people are unlikely to cooperate with you in the future. That doesn't change his presence in the Senate, but it will mean that he can get less done there. Cheers, Ben To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act - [link\|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20\|Nebraska Supreme Court]
Post #150,999 by Another Scott 4/13/04 10:59:27 AM Reply	He's in the minority. What can he do?
Post #151,000 by pwhysall 4/13/04 11:01:59 AM Reply	Fuck off and have your pansy-ass civilised debate elsewhere. This is Flames, remember? Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #151,003 by Another Scott 4/13/04 11:07:47 AM Reply	Ack! It burns! It burns! <crash, thud>
Post #151,006 by ben_tilly 4/13/04 11:15:58 AM Reply	And fuck you to Brits suck. Grammer Nazis suk m0r. Ben To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act - [link\|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20\|Nebraska Supreme Court]
Post #151,007 by pwhysall 4/13/04 11:18:48 AM Reply	Fuck me to what? Fucktard. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #151,010 by ben_tilly 4/13/04 11:29:28 AM Reply	See what I said about grammer nazis, fuckwit To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act - [link\|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20\|Nebraska Supreme Court]
Post #151,011 by pwhysall 4/13/04 11:31:55 AM Reply	Deliberate spelling errors are so pass\ufffd, Ben. Or maybe you really are a spacker. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #151,012 by boxley 4/13/04 11:40:42 AM Reply	is a tard lower or higher than a wit? "You're just like me streak. You never left the free-fire zone.You think aspirins and meetings and cold showers are going to clean out your head. What you want is God's permission to paint the trees with the bad guys. That wont happen big mon." Clete questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #151,079 by broomberg 4/13/04 7:38:48 PM Reply	You can't handle subtlety I prefer my arguments to build up into an explosion.
Post #151,086 by folkert 4/13/04 8:00:38 PM 4/14/04 8:12:36 AM Reply	Never Noticed that! tic -- [link\|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net\|greg], [link\|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry\|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ *i_wethey* Give a man a match, he'll be warm for a minute. Set him on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life! Edited by folkert April 14, 2004, 08:12:36 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #151,092 by ben_tilly 4/13/04 8:47:17 PM Reply	As I recall, you were the grenade... To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act - [link\|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20\|Nebraska Supreme Court]
Post #151,131 by folkert 4/14/04 8:13:05 AM Reply	Ummm, yeah. I know. And I still like to fight with him :) -- [link\|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net\|greg], [link\|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry\|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ *i_wethey* Give a man a match, he'll be warm for a minute. Set him on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life!
Post #151,229 by broomberg 4/15/04 8:35:37 AM Reply	I was the finger on your pin.

Welcome to IWETHEY!