NationStates Jolt Archive

I know this is a loaded question, but please try not to tie it to the issue of appointing judges. The question is, is it a useful practice and under what circumstances or should it be done away with all together?

I know this is a loaded question, but please try not to tie it to the issue of appointing judges. The question is, is it a useful practice and under what circumstances or should it be done away with all together?

I believe it is a usefull practice, and gives the minority power from being oppressed by the majority. It should be applicable to all situations arrising in legislature.

It's a good practice under some conditions (i.e. blocking justices that will destroy Americans' inalienable rights etc.) but not under others (i.e. blocking a piece of legislation because the senator who propsed it insulted you). Basically yeah, it's good only for my party. :D

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

It's a bad practice, Republicans didn't filibuster any of Clinton's choices.

I had to learn about filibustering for my Poltics A-Level. It sounds like a fantastic idea, some guy managed to go for like 36 hours. Ended up talking about his granma's cookies.

That would be Strom Thurmon. Yeah, filibustering is an essential practice in politics. However, it CAN be overused, or used improperly. Thus, certain limits may need to be imposed on it.

Our nation was always meant to be a republic, not a pure democracy. The filibuster is a protection of the minority and is a necessary practice. Can it be misused? Of course it can - especially in today's culture when nobody wants to think for themselves and everything becomes a party-line issue. However, in principle, it is absolutely necessary.

Good practice, but only for my party.


Alright, I admit that my vote was a joke.

It's a bad practice, Republicans didn't filibuster any of Clinton's choices.

I hope you said that in jest... While I'm glad many of Clinton's nominee's didn't get confirmed, at least 48 judicial nominees were filibustered by the Republican's during his Presidency.

I do believe it is a bad practice under all circumstances. It essentially guruantees that nothing ever gets done. It wastes tax dollars and legislative time.

I know this is a loaded question, but please try not to tie it to the issue of appointing judges. The question is, is it a useful practice and under what circumstances or should it be done away with all together?
Mostly good. Unfortunately, the filibuster ( like most "weapons' ) can also be used as little more than an obstructionistic or harrassing device. If our elected officials would behave responsibly the filibuster would be what it was intended to be: a last resort for members of the minority party, or senators who believed a course of action was totally wrong, to keep the majority party from simply steamrollering them. It's extremely sad that there is obviously little hope of our elected officials behaving in a responsible manner. :(

It's extremely sad that there is obviously little hope of our elected officials behaving in a responsible manner. :(

Agreed!!!! :( :( :(

It's extremely sad that there is obviously little hope of our elected officials behaving in a responsible manner. :(

lol. If you think you've got it bad, try the Australian Parliaments. Particularly at state level. The New South Wales Parliament is the world's best example of a place where nothing gets done. It's taken them 30 years to actually get around to duplicating the rail line near here (they're starting next year, hopefully.)

It's ridiculous. Not to mention that at council level, the NIMBY rules over all! In some cases this is good. For example, the government wants to build a freeway through this area that isn't really needed. Nobody I can think of down here is against the rail duplication, though. It needs to be fixed. Now.

Our nation was always meant to be a republic, not a pure democracy. The filibuster is a protection of the minority and is a necessary practice. Can it be misused? Of course it can - especially in today's culture when nobody wants to think for themselves and everything becomes a party-line issue. However, in principle, it is absolutely necessary.I would like to bring to your attention the fact that the USA is not a democracy for two reasons:

1) The founders believed it would lead to anarchy, which is apparently evil;

2) The founders also were worried about political apathy and bribery.

However, there is a third reason: it would become a tyranny by majority where filibusters do not help anything. Therefore the filibuster is good given the American system.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

I believe it is a usefull practice, and gives the minority power from being oppressed by the majority. It should be applicable to all situations arrising in legislature.

The basic tenent of democracy is MAJORITY RULES! When one side has more support, they get more votes and they win. Filibustering is an anti-democratic practice. It takes power away from those that the people chose to wield it. It gives a small minority the power to control the procedings and decisions of government. It takes away the democratic rights of millions of people. There is no arguement in favor of filibustering, beyond specific cases that are only arguements because of your personal ideology. Filibustering is wrong, and anti-democratic. It should be banned in all circumstances.

The basic tenent of democracy is MAJORITY RULES!
No, thats the first rule of tyranny by majority.

This poll sucks. The reality is this: The fillibuster option MUST be preserved. The problem is the latest misuse of it by democrats.

The neo-cons now want to eliminate a VERY important option for a minority to prevent allowing majority tyranny. It should NOT be restricted by the neo-cons at any cost.The democrats however are obviously blatently abusing this minority tool.

The centrists who were able to come to a compromise on this issue are the REAL heroes. Be they Republicans, Democrats, and independents.

The basic tenent of democracy is MAJORITY RULES! When one side has more support, they get more votes and they win. Filibustering is an anti-democratic practice. It takes power away from those that the people chose to wield it. It gives a small minority the power to control the procedings and decisions of government. It takes away the democratic rights of millions of people. There is no arguement in favor of filibustering, beyond specific cases that are only arguements because of your personal ideology. Filibustering is wrong, and anti-democratic. It should be banned in all circumstances.

I suppose it's a good thing that the United States isn't a democracy, huh?

Democracy means that everybody gets one vote. Everybody votes, and then the people who get the most votes get elected. Those people get one vote each on laws and motions in government, and whatever option gets the most support is the one that is carried out. So, the majority of people have the power. That is democracy, anything else is tyranny or dictatorship. Deomcracy means that the people make the decisions, the majority of the people weild the power. I just got out of a poli-sci course, I know what I am talking about here. If the minority controls the government then that is no true democracy. Filibustering prevents democracy.

The basic tenent of democracy is MAJORITY RULES! When one side has more support, they get more votes and they win. Filibustering is an anti-democratic practice. It takes power away from those that the people chose to wield it. It gives a small minority the power to control the procedings and decisions of government. It takes away the democratic rights of millions of people. There is no arguement in favor of filibustering, beyond specific cases that are only arguements because of your personal ideology. Filibustering is wrong, and anti-democratic. It should be banned in all circumstances.

The majority rule is fairly stupid.

Two Hundred Years ago, the majority of USians supported slavery.

Sixty Years ago, the majority of Germans supported concentration camps.

Fourty Years Ago, the majority of USians supported segregation.

Today, the majority supports banning the use of dihydrogenmonoxide, more commonly known as water.

Democracy means that everybody gets one vote. Everybody votes, and then the people who get the most votes get elected. Those people get one vote each on laws and motions in government, and whatever option gets the most support is the one that is carried out. So, the majority of people have the power. That is democracy, anything else is tyranny or dictatorship. Deomcracy means that the people make the decisions, the majority of the people weild the power. I just got out of a poli-sci course, I know what I am talking about here. If the minority controls the government then that is no true democracy. Filibustering prevents democracy.

And the United States is not a true democracy, for the very reasons you listed; because true democracy is tyranny.

The majority rule is fairly stupid.

Two Hundred Years ago, the majority of USians supported slavery.

Sixty Years ago, the majority of Germans supported concentration camps.

Fourty Years Ago, the majority of USians supported segregation.

Today, the majority supports banning the use of dihydrogenmonoxide, more commonly known as water.I thought it was just swimming pools.

A friend of mine thinks that a true democracy cannot exist without the tenet "rule by the majority, protection for the minority", preventing a tyranny by majority. I think, actually, that that inhibits a true democracy.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

The reality is this: The fillibuster option MUST be preserved. The problem is the latest misuse of it by democrats.


EVERYBODY misuses the filibuster, it is a process that is far to easy to misuse, so everybody does it.The democrats are doing it now because they are not in power. When Clinton was in, the rebublicans used it. When Reagan and Bush were in, the democrats used it. It is a way for the minority to take power away from those who earned it. This kind of rationale is foolish. The filibuster, by it's very definition, denys democracy. You as much as admitted it yourself by saying that the minority democrats are misusing the filibuster. If the democracy works, it should have no need for this practice. Attack the disease, don't support the symptom.

EVERYBODY misuses the filibuster, it is a process that is far to easy to misuse, so everybody does it.The democrats are doing it now because they are not in power. When Clinton was in, the rebublicans used it. When Reagan and Bush were in, the democrats used it. It is a way for the minority to take power away from those who earned it. This kind of rationale is foolish. The filibuster, by it's very definition, denys democracy. You as much as admitted it yourself by saying that the minority democrats are misusing the filibuster. If the democracy works, it should have no need for this practice. Attack the disease, don't support the symptom.
yes, but the US isnt a democracy

as far as i can see, the filibuster is a decent way of ensuring that the rights of minorities arent trampled into the ground by a majority who likes to think it has the moral highground. this can apply in any situation.

I thought it was just swimming pools.

A friend of mine thinks that a true democracy cannot exist without the tenet "rule by the majority, protection for the minority", preventing a tyranny by majority. I think, actually, that that inhibits a true democracy.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Nope. Complete and total ban.

It was the result of an experiment. A student created the completely true and highly damaging anti-water propaganda and asked people to sign a petition to ban it.
He never called it water, only dihydrogenmonoxide, which sounds scarier. More than 90% of the people polled signed the petition.

http://www.dhmo.org/

The majority is easily manipulated. With the right propaganda you can get majority support for any scheme.

EVERYBODY misuses the filibuster, it is a process that is far to easy to misuse, so everybody does it.The democrats are doing it now because they are not in power. When Clinton was in, the rebublicans used it. When Reagan and Bush were in, the democrats used it. It is a way for the minority to take power away from those who earned it. This kind of rationale is foolish. The filibuster, by it's very definition, denys democracy. You as much as admitted it yourself by saying that the minority democrats are misusing the filibuster. If the democracy works, it should have no need for this practice. Attack the disease, don't support the symptom.
THE USA IS NOT A DEMOCRACY. That's why we have a filibuster.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Nope. Complete and total ban.

It was the result of an experiment. A student created the completely true and highly damaging anti-water propaganda and asked people to sign a petition to ban it.
He never called it water, only dihydrogenmonoxide, which sounds scarier. More than 90% of the people polled signed the petition.

http://www.dhmo.org/

The majority is easily manipulated. With the right propaganda you can get majority support for any scheme.

I remember a friend of mine sending me that petition and telling me to sign it. I literally kicked him in the shins when I saw it.

You have to hand it to whomever put that website together; it's very expertly done.

I hope you said that in jest... While I'm glad many of Clinton's nominee's didn't get confirmed, at least 48 judicial nominees were filibustered by the Republican's during his Presidency.

I do believe it is a bad practice under all circumstances. It essentially guruantees that nothing ever gets done. It wastes tax dollars and legislative time.

I am not positive, but I believe you are incorrect. Using the fillibuster for judicial appointments is a new thing. Regardless, the Republicans had the majority for the bulk of Clinton's terms in office, why would they have needed to use a fillibuster?

Good practice, and is hilarious. Here you have the halls of the senate, where laws get passed, and some guy stands up and starts talking about whatever he wants.

Our nation was always meant to be a republic, not a pure democracy. The filibuster is a protection of the minority and is a necessary practice. Can it be misused? Of course it can - especially in today's culture when nobody wants to think for themselves and everything becomes a party-line issue. However, in principle, it is absolutely necessary.

I agree wholeheartedly. I see it as a "necessary evil". Boy, this "armchair politician" stuff is kinda cool...

Daniel

(No... really.)

I am not positive, but I believe you are incorrect. Using the fillibuster for judicial appointments is a new thing. Regardless, the Republicans had the majority for the bulk of Clinton's terms in office, why would they have needed to use a fillibuster?
No, he's right, and it's common knowledge. More of Clinton's nominees were filibustered than any other President's nominees.

Judicial filibusters aren't new. They've been used for years.

It's a bad practice, Republicans didn't filibuster any of Clinton's choices.

You're not very well informed.

Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) used the filibuster against 13 nominees

Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO) used it to block two Clinton nominees (James Lyons, 10th Circuit Court and Patricia Coan for District Court)

Senator Robert Bennett (R-UT), used it to block 13 Clinton nominees (Walter Dellinger, Janet Napolitano, Sam W. Brown, Derek Shearer, Ricki Tigert, Henry Foster, and 5 State Department nominees)

Senator Christopher Bond (R-MO), used it to block 9 Clinton executive nominees.

Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS), used it against 3 Clinton nominees.

Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY), used it against two Clinton Nominees.

Senator Conrad Burns (R-MT), used it against 10 Clinton nominees.

Senator Thad Cochran (R-MS), used it against 11 Clinton Nominees.

Senator Michael Crapo (R-ID), used it against a single Clinton nominee.

Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH), used it against 3 Clinton nominees.

Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), used it against 10 Clinton nominees.

Senator Michael Enzi (R-WY), used it against 3 Clinton nominees.

Senator Bill Frist (R-TN), used it against 1 Clinton Judicial Nominee (Richard Paez).

Senator Chuck Grassey (R-IA), used it against 11 Clinton nominees.

Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH), used it against 11 Clinton nominees.

I can keep going if you like....

The basic tenent of democracy is MAJORITY RULES! When one side has more support, they get more votes and they win. Filibustering is an anti-democratic practice. It takes power away from those that the people chose to wield it. It gives a small minority the power to control the procedings and decisions of government. It takes away the democratic rights of millions of people. There is no arguement in favor of filibustering, beyond specific cases that are only arguements because of your personal ideology. Filibustering is wrong, and anti-democratic. It should be banned in all circumstances.

#1 Repeat after me, "The United States is not a democracy."

#2 "The United States is a Republic."

#3 Repeat as needed.

Democracy means that everybody gets one vote. Everybody votes, and then the people who get the most votes get elected. Those people get one vote each on laws and motions in government, and whatever option gets the most support is the one that is carried out. So, the majority of people have the power. That is democracy, anything else is tyranny or dictatorship. Deomcracy means that the people make the decisions, the majority of the people weild the power. I just got out of a poli-sci course, I know what I am talking about here. If the minority controls the government then that is no true democracy. Filibustering prevents democracy.

Follow previous instructions. US government is limited by its constitution. The US is a Republic, with a ballance of power between branches, and checks (such as the filibuster) which is used to prevent majority from overstepping minority. The filibuster isn't a controling move, it's a blocking move... It allows the minority PROTECTION against majority... The only way to "block it" is by gaining a SIGNIFICANT MAJORITY VOTE (2/3)... Filibuster is used to block "simple majority" rule.

#1 Repeat after me, "The United States is not a democracy."

#2 "The United States is a Republic."

#3 Repeat as needed.

Actually, it is a republic and a democracy. There are two types of democracy, direct and indirect.

Direct democracy is rule by the people directly through the vote. Indirect democracy is rule of the people through representatives who act in their interests.

In the US representatives are elected through direct democracy. They act on behalf of the people as an indirect democracy.

However, an indirect democracy doesn't have to have elected officials. Anyone who rules on behalf of the people is a democratic ruller no matter how he or she came into power. Bloody coup, violent war and occupation, secret dealings by an elite oligarcy, all of these can be democracy so long as the rulers have the people's best interests at heart.

I wonder if the ska band Filibuster is trying to capitalize on this, maybe having a 'Save Filibuster' tour or something. That'd be great. I'm going to have to check The List...

Speaking of lists--
You're not very well informed.

Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) used the filibuster against 13 nominees
...
long list continues
...

Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH), used it against 11 Clinton nominees.

I can keep going if you like....
Nice. That has to come from somewhere. Do you happen to have a list of how it has been used by Dems currently? I have to admit I've only heard the shouting so I don't really know how often it's been used recently but my understanding is that it is FAR less, making this whole thing a "Do as we say, not as we do" which I've come to expect over the last few years.

Also, I don't really understand what the comprimise was. I guess I could look that up myself, with my lazy ass...

Any limit of the filibuster is a limit on free speech.

The Republicans really have a habit of putting their feet in their mouths. After FDR, who was elected 4 times, they got a law passed saying a president could only serve 2 terms. Then less than 40 years later they get Raegan, who could have easily been elected again and again.

If the fillibuster gets banned, they in a few years when the balance of power has again changed, they will need it and won't be able to use it.

two things:

1)Americans voted for each one of these people to be there. Their job is to discuss legislation and vote on legislation. If they were there to waste time, well hell, I could do that as well as anyone else on the Hill. I'd hope that my representative spends his/her time in Congress arguing over issues I care about instead of giving out his grandma's cookie recipes. This act is a waste of taxpayers' money.

2)If they're going to do this, they should at least make it interesting. For instance, how about reading passages from classic books... or giving out good pizza or fried chicken or lasagna recipes... or expostulating on Luther's 95 Theses. lol

I wonder if the ska band Filibuster is trying to capitalize on this, maybe having a 'Save Filibuster' tour or something. That'd be great. I'm going to have to check The List...

Speaking of lists--

Nice. That has to come from somewhere. Do you happen to have a list of how it has been used by Dems currently? I have to admit I've only heard the shouting so I don't really know how often it's been used recently but my understanding is that it is FAR less, making this whole thing a "Do as we say, not as we do" which I've come to expect over the last few years.

Also, I don't really understand what the comprimise was. I guess I could look that up myself, with my lazy ass...

About the same concept, though the Dems have just been using it (to date) on judicial nominees. (Republicans under the Clinton used it for just about every conceivable nominee (judicial, executive or departmental)...

I omited some intentionally (like Senator John Warner [R-VA], and John McCain [R-AZ]) because they used it, and are opposing the move by Frist to bar the use of the filibuster.

To slap even more upon the relative hypocrisy of the Bushites:

Since 1789 a full 20% of judicial nominees have faced filibuster before the legislature.

In 1968, the GOP used the tactic to block a nominee from Johnson's administration, to chief justice. Senator Robert Griffin (R) made this statement during the filibuster; "It is important to realize that it has not been unusual for the Senate to indicate its lack of approval for a nomination by just making sure that it never came to a vote on the merits. As I said, 21 nominations to the court have failed to win Senate approval. But only nine of that number were rejected on a direct, up-and-down vote."

The use of filibuster to block nominations, is by no means "new". The idea that the neo-cons have been painting that it is, is frankly a distortion (if not outright fraud) of history.

Out of the 229 nominees, 204 have made approval (that is ~90% approval rate from the legislature)... during his first term, he had about a 97% approval rate. Most of the present nominees being blocked, were blocked the FIRST time around (during previous term). These are "renominations" mostly...

No, he's right, and it's common knowledge. More of Clinton's nominees were filibustered than any other President's nominees.

Judicial filibusters aren't new. They've been used for years.

OK, if you say so.

Cant say as I care that much one way or the other about what a political cries about when its in the majority/minority. I am fairly confident they both reverse their views once their political roles change.

The majority rule is fairly stupid.

Two Hundred Years ago, the majority of USians supported slavery.

Sixty Years ago, the majority of Germans supported concentration camps.

Fourty Years Ago, the majority of USians supported segregation.

Today, the majority supports banning the use of dihydrogenmonoxide, more commonly known as water.
Honest to God, if you don't stop using "USians" to refer to my Country, I'm going to give you the honor of being the very FIRST idiot to go on my "ignore" list! :mad:

We need to have checks and balances before we have a one-party system like the Russia used to have when it was the Soviet Union. What we need is a way ot have majority rule, but minority rights. If there are no more filibusters, then what will the minority use? Dems. have misused it. So have REpublicans and Whigs and Federalists.

Honest to God, if you don't stop using "USians" to refer to my Country, I'm going to give you the honor of being the very FIRST idiot to go on my "ignore" list! :mad:
To be fair, that's not very tolerant.

I agree that the term USians does sound silly. But, at the end of the day, Americans is a confusing term. Why should it arrogantly be claimed by just a single country of the Americas? Is a Brazilian less entitled to call him or herself an American than a person in USA? What would happen if the EU suddenly decided that only people living in the EU could call themselves Europeans? Would that make the Swiss no longer European?

It may be an issue of symantics, but it is a legitimate issue.

EVERYBODY misuses the filibuster, it is a process that is far to easy to misuse, so everybody does it.The democrats are doing it now because they are not in power. When Clinton was in, the rebublicans used it. When Reagan and Bush were in, the democrats used it. It is a way for the minority to take power away from those who earned it. This kind of rationale is foolish. The filibuster, by it's very definition, denys democracy. You as much as admitted it yourself by saying that the minority democrats are misusing the filibuster. If the democracy works, it should have no need for this practice. Attack the disease, don't support the symptom.

Actually when Clinton was in office, the republicans when they gained majority simply didn't bother to vote or debate on them.

Also this is a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. It is not a true democracy. We MUST preserve the institution and protect minority rights for the times it IS needed and not just a tool for party ideology wars. Both sides are abusing their power. The centrists on both sides need to gain back some power so America can unite and move on.

To be fair, that's not very tolerant.

I agree that the term USians does sound silly. But, at the end of the day, Americans is a confusing term. Why should it arrogantly be claimed by just a single country of the Americas? Is a Brazilian less entitled to call him or herself an American than a person in USA? What would happen if the EU suddenly decided that only people living in the EU could call themselves Europeans? Would that make the Swiss no longer European?

It may be an issue of symantics, but it is a legitimate issue.

Because, this country HAPPENS to be called The "United States of "America".

We also call Mexicans so because their nation is "The United States of Mexico".

It isn't confusing. We just happened to call our union of states a union of American states. Thus why we call ourselves Americans. The term USians is not only stupid, its horridly incorrect. Yankees are not correct either.

We just HAPPEN to share our name with the same continent we live on. Go figure. I agree, this idiot needs to get his terminiology correct or he should be ignored.

Now if Mexico and Mexicans, and Canadians and whatever started to refer themselves as "United States of America" or "Northern American States", "America nacionales"without actually refering to our government, THEN we would have a problem and confusion would arise.

It's a bad practice, Republicans didn't filibuster any of Clinton's choices.
Someone else might have hit you with this already, but I'll give you a name--Richard Paez. And what's more, Bill Frist voted to uphold the filibuster on him.

Actually, it is a republic and a democracy. There are two types of democracy, direct and indirect.

Direct democracy is rule by the people directly through the vote. Indirect democracy is rule of the people through representatives who act in their interests.

In the US representatives are elected through direct democracy. They act on behalf of the people as an indirect democracy.

However, an indirect democracy doesn't have to have elected officials. Anyone who rules on behalf of the people is a democratic ruller no matter how he or she came into power. Bloody coup, violent war and occupation, secret dealings by an elite oligarcy, all of these can be democracy so long as the rulers have the people's best interests at heart.

A bit of a side-track this, but...

It's interesting how some people define such words as 'democracy,' which most people take for granted as being pretty obvious. Your definition includes dictatorial rule in the interests of the people, which I've never heard before. However, I have often heard before the idea that the USA isn't a democracy, because they think a democracy is somehow mutually exclusive to a republic.

I understand a democracy as any system where the government/legislature is elected by the people at large to govern. That includes a system where their powers are circumscribed by checks and balances, which some people are saying is not a democracy but a republic.

I understand a republic to be a state where the people are sovereign - 'res public' means rule of the people, or something like that. It can be contrasted to a monarchy, where the monarch is sovereign. This is like the French Republics, which emerged whenever a king/emperor/whatever was deposed and the people took over as sovereign, and disappeared when new kings/emperors took over again. I think this is the traditional and, as far as I'm aware, most commonly used meaning of 'republic.' It doesn't necessarily imply elections, but as the people are sovereign it generally means they'll happen.

The US is therefore a republic as well as being a democracy. The UK is a democracy but not a republic, because it's a constitutional monarchy. Bhutan is a monarchy but not a democracy (I think). The USSR was indeed a union of soviet socialist republics, but was no democracy.

If a republic was a democracy with checks and balances ensuring liberty and freedom from majority rule then the UK would be a republic. But it isn't. No republic exists with a monarch, however much they have elections combined with checks and balances, because that isn't what republic actually means. It means a state where the people are sovereign. And democracy means elections.

Do you happen to have a list of how it has been used by Dems currently? I have to admit I've only heard the shouting so I don't really know how often it's been used recently but my understanding is that it is FAR less, making this whole thing a "Do as we say, not as we do" which I've come to expect over the last few years.

Also, I don't really understand what the comprimise was. I guess I could look that up myself, with my lazy ass...
The Democrats filibustered ten nominees for judgeships during Bush's first term. Of those, two eventually withdrew, one was appointed with a recess appointment and retired before he came up again, and seven were renominated, which set off this latest fight.

The deal, according to what I've read, will give up or down votes on three, (Brown, Pryor and Owen), make no promises on two (Saad and Myers), and the other two are apparently dead in the water, because there's no mention of them at all (Cavanaugh and Haynes).

The deal, which I don't like because it's too mushy and easy to get out of, basically says that the Dems will only filibuster in extreme circumstances and in return the Repubs won't try to get rid of the filibuster unless they think the Dems are being unreasonable. Doesn't sound like much of a deal to me, since all the caveats are so subjective. All this has done is pushed off the confrontation till another day, so far as I can tell.

And here's the big reason I wanted this to actually go to a vote. I figured the Democrats were in a win-win situation. If the nuclear option failed (i.e. the moderate republicans saw that they were being led over a precipice by a leader with presidential ambitions and who was doing whatever James Dobson told him to do), then the status quo was maintained, and the Democrats won. If they got the nuclear option through, then the filibuster would be effectively dead, not just for nominations, but overall, and when the Democrats regain control of the Senate and the presidency--as they inevitably will one day--payback would have been a bitch. Can you say Chief Justice Al Sharpton? And all I'd have had to say was "up or down vote, my bitches. You made the rules--now live by them."

The US is therefore a republic as well as being a democracy. The UK is a democracy but not a republic, because it's a constitutional monarchy.
actually, Parliament in the UK is sovereign (and is "supreme to all other governmental institutions including the monarch"), and its a representative parliament elected by the people, which sounds suspiciously like what you were talking about to mean a republic

Quick update on the deal--according to this article (http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=956), Frist hasn't agreed to anything, and is going to file for cloture on Myers, who is one of the judges that the 14 "moderates" (any group that includes McCain and Lindsey Graham can't be called moderates in my book) agreed would be withdrawn. Looks like we may get that vote after all, and the Republicans who call themselves moderate will have to decide if they want to be associated with the party of SpongeDob StickyPants.

actually, Parliament in the UK is sovereign (and is "supreme to all other governmental institutions including the monarch"), and its a representative parliament elected by the people, which sounds suspiciously like what you were talking about to mean a republic

I know, but I couldn't be bothered to go into too much detail about it. My post was long enough as it was. Perhaps 'sovereign' wasn't the right word. Perhaps it would be simpler to say that a monarchy has a monarch as head of state, whereas a republic has a representative of the people.

Anyway, the point is that UK is not a republic, yet it has elected governments held by checks and balances that prevent outright majoritarian tyranny. Because republic means no monarchy, in short.

The basic tenent of democracy is MAJORITY RULES! When one side has more support, they get more votes and they win. Filibustering is an anti-democratic practice. It takes power away from those that the people chose to wield it. It gives a small minority the power to control the procedings and decisions of government. It takes away the democratic rights of millions of people. There is no arguement in favor of filibustering, beyond specific cases that are only arguements because of your personal ideology. Filibustering is wrong, and anti-democratic. It should be banned in all circumstances.

Good thing america isnt a democracy? :rolleyes:

Quick update on the deal--according to this article (http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=956), Frist hasn't agreed to anything, and is going to file for cloture on Myers, who is one of the judges that the 14 "moderates" (any group that includes McCain and Lindsey Graham can't be called moderates in my book) agreed would be withdrawn. Looks like we may get that vote after all, and the Republicans who call themselves moderate will have to decide if they want to be associated with the party of SpongeDob StickyPants.
Okay, so here is my prediction down for posteriety, even if I didn't spell that right. From what I gather then, they struck a deal, the one you described to me above and I've now seen.

All that we are going to hear about that deal on broadcast media is that the Republicans won't 'go nuke' if the Democrats 'be reasonable.' (Seems like if they've only blocked ten, they've been more than fucking reasonable, but whatever). That's the line. That's what will be in the graphics.

Now-Frist is going to push one of the people that's in the actual deal-which will force the Democrats to do what they said they would do and fillibuster the nominee, right after the Democrats said they'd be reasonable (never mind the Republicans also said they wouldn't push that guy).

Then, The White Noise Generator will be fired up. "The Democrats couldn't even be reasonable for one day" "They have broken their promise to the American people" "THEY CALL THAT REASONABLE?" etc etc, varying in intensity depending in the talking head. Right next to said head will be the graphic of the deal, the promise. Questions will be asked with the dreaded "People say..." or "Are people going to say..." or even the daring "What does this say to the people?"

With new found outrage, and enough white noise to obscure that the actual deal was that they would back off that particular nominee, Frist will then push through the option again hoping that the screen worked.

Will it? I don't know. Crazier stuff has happened.

Thats my prediction.

To be fair, that's not very tolerant.

I agree that the term USians does sound silly. But, at the end of the day, Americans is a confusing term. Why should it arrogantly be claimed by just a single country of the Americas? Is a Brazilian less entitled to call him or herself an American than a person in USA? What would happen if the EU suddenly decided that only people living in the EU could call themselves Europeans? Would that make the Swiss no longer European?

It may be an issue of symantics, but it is a legitimate issue.

"Americans" as in "The United States of America"

As well as "Mexicans" as in "The United States of Mexico"

"French" as in "The Republic of France"

And "Canadians" as in "The Canadian Confederation"

USians is a stupid term which defies the normative language of how nationality is reffered to in this language. We are "Americans" because our nation is the United States of America.

Okay, so here is my prediction down for posteriety, even if I didn't spell that right. From what I gather then, they struck a deal, the one you described to me above and I've now seen.

All that we are going to hear about that deal on broadcast media is that the Republicans won't 'go nuke' if the Democrats 'be reasonable.' (Seems like if they've only blocked ten, they've been more than fucking reasonable, but whatever). That's the line. That's what will be in the graphics.

Now-Frist is going to push one of the people that's in the actual deal-which will force the Democrats to do what they said they would do and fillibuster the nominee, right after the Democrats said they'd be reasonable (never mind the Republicans also said they wouldn't push that guy).

Then, The White Noise Generator will be fired up. "The Democrats couldn't even be reasonable for one day" "They have broken their promise to the American people" "THEY CALL THAT REASONABLE?" etc etc, varying in intensity depending in the talking head. Right next to said head will be the graphic of the deal, the promise. Questions will be asked with the dreaded "People say..." or "Are people going to say..." or even the daring "What does this say to the people?"

With new found outrage, and enough white noise to obscure that the actual deal was that they would back off that particular nominee, Frist will then push through the option again hoping that the screen worked.

Will it? I don't know. Crazier stuff has happened.

Thats my prediction.That's not even particularly crazy. Based on the reaction of the Freepi yesterday to the announcement of the deal, my guess is that Frist figured that if he wanted even the slightest shot at the nomination in 2008, he was going to have to not agree to the deal after he agreed to it. Dobson had a cow, and all but called Frist a pussy yesterday.

So what it really comes down to is--are these so-called moderates on the republican side really willing to cede control of their party officially to the wingnuts? Considering that some of these moderates are moderate in name only, I don't like the odds. For the Dems to win a vote on the nuclear option, they've got to pull six Republicans to their side because any tie goes to Dick Cheney--three are already there, so they've gto to get three more willing to buck the system. Now, this grandstanding by Frist may push them over the edge, but again, I don't like having to depend on that.

. Because republic means no monarchy, in short.
that would have been a much better explanation :p

"Americans" as in "The United States of America"

As well as "Mexicans" as in "The United States of Mexico"

"French" as in "The Republic of France"

And "Canadians" as in "The Canadian Confederation"

USians is a stupid term which defies the normative language of how nationality is reffered to in this language. We are "Americans" because our nation is the United States of America.

However, neither Mexico, France or Canada include the name of the continent they are on in their titles. Incidentally, Canada's official name is simply "Canada". Thus, there is no confusion with the terms Mexicans, French or Canadian. Mexicans and Canadians however are as equally Americans as people from USA. Just as French are as much Europeans as Swedes.

The only other examples I can think of that are similar to USA's arrogant desire to claim total ownership of the adjective of their continent are Australia. However, seeing as Australia is the only country on Australia, it's not really so arrogant or causing a problem. (Of course, there's a whole debate on whether Australia is actually a continent and not just an island anyway!)

Other examples I can think of where countries are named after a geographic space occupied by other countries are Central African Republic and Saudi Arabia. I assume most people wouldn't refer to residents of C.A.R. as Africans? This would be rather confusing! As for Saudi Arabia, of course Arabia is a rather dated term for the region, however the adjective used always is Saudi Arabians or simply Saudis which qualifies that this adjective pertains to Saudi Arabia and not any other country in Arabia or the Arabian peninsular.

So, whilst I have no doubt that I and most people will continue to call residents and citizens of USA Americans, and use the adjective 'American' to describe things of and pertaining to USA, we must acknowledge that the original poster who used the term "USAians" and was then condemned by another poster had adopted a completely reasonable argument. I was merely defending his/her write to hold that opinion over the childish ignorant threat of placing this original poster on ignore.

United Staters ( ;) ) must remember that their's is not the only country in the Americas and thus they are not the only Americans.

USians is a stupid term which defies the normative language of how nationality is reffered to in this language. We are "Americans" because our nation is the United States of America.
It is a stupid term. That's the term we use in Finland anyway, cos in Finnish American means anyone from any nation in Americas. USians means people from USA. But that's our normative. You have your's and I will continue to call you Americans.

IMO Americai's reaction was pretty unnecessary

However, neither Mexico, France or Canada include the name of the continent they are on in their titles. Incidentally, Canada's official name is simply "Canada". Thus, there is no confusion with the terms Mexicans, French or Canadian. Mexicans and Canadians however are as equally Americans as people from USA. Just as French are as much Europeans as Swedes.

The only other examples I can think of that are similar to USA's arrogant desire to claim total ownership of the adjective of their continent are Australia. However, seeing as Australia is the only country on Australia, it's not really so arrogant or causing a problem. (Of course, there's a whole debate on whether Australia is actually a continent and not just an island anyway!)

Other examples I can think of where countries are named after a geographic space occupied by other countries are Central African Republic and Saudi Arabia. I assume most people wouldn't refer to residents of C.A.R. as Africans? This would be rather confusing! As for Saudi Arabia, of course Arabia is a rather dated term for the region, however the adjective used always is Saudi Arabians or simply Saudis which qualifies that this adjective pertains to Saudi Arabia and not any other country in Arabia or the Arabian peninsular.

So, whilst I have no doubt that I and most people will continue to call residents and citizens of USA Americans, and use the adjective 'American' to describe things of and pertaining to USA, we must acknowledge that the original poster who used the term "USAians" and was then condemned by another poster had adopted a completely reasonable argument. I was merely defending his/her write to hold that opinion over the childish ignorant threat of placing this original poster on ignore.

United Staters ( ;) ) must remember that their's is not the only country in the Americas and thus they are not the only Americans.

Actually, Canadians and Mexicans, just as Americans, are North Americans, if you go by proper continental discription. "Americans" reffers to North Americans from the United States of America....

Either you follow the proper terminology in english for reffering to a county's inhabitants, or you do not. Either they can call us by our Federated name (Americans) or they can find out our particular state citizenry, and reffer to us as that (Virginians, Californians, Montanans, Texans, Floridians, Pennsylvanians, etc.).

If you reffer to my citizen status as anything other than "American" or "Virginia", I will simply consider you a moronic asswipe.

However, neither Mexico, France or Canada include the name of the continent they are on in their titles. Incidentally, Canada's official name is simply "Canada". Thus, there is no confusion with the terms Mexicans, French or Canadian. Mexicans and Canadians however are as equally Americans as people from USA. Just as French are as much Europeans as Swedes.

The only other examples I can think of that are similar to USA's arrogant desire to claim total ownership of the adjective of their continent are Australia. However, seeing as Australia is the only country on Australia, it's not really so arrogant or causing a problem. (Of course, there's a whole debate on whether Australia is actually a continent and not just an island anyway!)

Other examples I can think of where countries are named after a geographic space occupied by other countries are Central African Republic and Saudi Arabia. I assume most people wouldn't refer to residents of C.A.R. as Africans? This would be rather confusing! As for Saudi Arabia, of course Arabia is a rather dated term for the region, however the adjective used always is Saudi Arabians or simply Saudis which qualifies that this adjective pertains to Saudi Arabia and not any other country in Arabia or the Arabian peninsular.

So, whilst I have no doubt that I and most people will continue to call residents and citizens of USA Americans, and use the adjective 'American' to describe things of and pertaining to USA, we must acknowledge that the original poster who used the term "USAians" and was then condemned by another poster had adopted a completely reasonable argument. I was merely defending his/her write to hold that opinion over the childish ignorant threat of placing this original poster on ignore.

United Staters ( ;) ) must remember that their's is not the only country in the Americas and thus they are not the only Americans.

NORTH AMERICA =/= AMERICA
CENTRAL AMERICA =/= AMERICA
SOUTH AMERICA =/= AMERICA

It is a stupid term. That's the term we use in Finland anyway, cos in Finnish American means anyone from any nation in Americas. USians means people from USA. But that's our normative. You have your's and I will continue to call you Americans.

IMO Americai's reaction was pretty unnecessary

Lies. Have you ever pronounced "USisans" vocally? Usians? That is even MORE confusing. And my reaction isn't unnecessary. The term has no validity. Its Americans. Also, others seem to be more vulger than I do.

Actually, Canadians and Mexicans, just as Americans, are North Americans, if you go by proper continental discription. "Americans" reffers to North Americans from the United States of America....

Either you follow the proper terminology in english for reffering to a county's inhabitants, or you do not. Either they can call us by our Federated name (Americans) or they can find out our particular state citizenry, and reffer to us as that (Virginians, Californians, Montanans, Texans, Floridians, Pennsylvanians, etc.).

If you reffer to my citizen status as anything other than "American" or "Virginia", I will simply consider you a moronic asswipe.

Someone gets it.

Actually, Canadians and Mexicans, just as Americans, are North Americans, if you go by proper continental discription. "Americans" reffers to North Americans from the United States of America....

Either you follow the proper terminology in english for reffering to a county's inhabitants, or you do not. Either they can call us by our Federated name (Americans) or they can find out our particular state citizenry, and reffer to us as that (Virginians, Californians, Montanans, Texans, Floridians, Pennsylvanians, etc.).

If you reffer to my citizen status as anything other than "American" or "Virginia", I will simply consider you a moronic asswipe.

Thank you for such an eloquent response ;)

I agree, people from USA and Canada are certainly North Americans. However, they are also Americans in the sense that North America is in the Americas. These things are not mutually exclusive. For instance, I am a Swede, a Scandinavian and a European all at once.

If you read my responses and my previous postings in any post where I have had to use an adjective in relation to USA, you will see that I use American. It's the de facto term for people from United States of America. I recognise this. However, I'm merely stating that even though this is the undoubted status quo, it is a rather arrogant use of the term American and people have the right to argue this and use another term should they wish.

It's interesting to note that the USA's government refers to the its citizens not as Americans but as "United States Citizens".

Thank you for such an eloquent response ;)

I agree, people from USA and Canada are certainly North Americans. However, they are also Americans in the sense that North America is in the Americas. These things are not mutually exclusive. For instance, I am a Swede, a Scandinavian and a European all at once.

If you read my responses and my previous postings in any post where I have had to use an adjective in relation to USA, you will see that I use American. It's the de facto term for people from United States of America. I recognise this. However, I'm merely stating that even though this is the undoubted status quo, it is a rather arrogant use of the term American and people have the right to argue this and use another term should they wish.

It's interesting to note that the USA's government refers to the its citizens not as Americans but as "United States Citizens".

The term "United States of America" was coined under the original union of the former colonies, now sovereign states of New Hampshire, Massashusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersy, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia; under the Articles of Confederation (1777-1788) forming the several sovereign states into a single confederated union. (Later replaced in 1789 by the United States Constitution, shifting the union from a confederation, to an actual federation). The term was adopted because we WERE the only sovereign states at that time. Thus being the only UNION of STATES in the entirety of North and South America.... Thus becomming the UNITED STATES of AMERICA (our official name adopted by original convention).

It's not arrogance, it is a statement of fact. 13 Sovereign States entering into perpetrual union with one another. And the first presence of sovereign independent "states" forming in the "New World" continents.

USians is no more viable than UKians.

I am a Virginian (being from the Commonwealth of Virginia) and I am an American, being from the United States of America, and I am a North American, being from the North American continent.

If you call me anything other than the above, you will be, and deserve to be, treated like a pedantic fool.

If you don't want to call me an "American", then call me a Virginian.... You use a retarded term like "USian" or "United Stater" or something equaly ignorant; you will have the term repeatedly shoved up your hind end, and beat profusely around your head for hours on end till you use an appropriate term.

I guess I knew this thread would set of debate, and for one of the very few times in my Nation States histroy, I may be modifying part of my position on this issue as the result of some very good points made about filibustering protecting the rights of the minority. However, I do still believe that it is grossly misused on a frequent basis and at the very least requires some rules...

That said, I want to thank you all for your responses. I've found this to be a very interesting and enlightening thread.

The term "United States of America" was coined under the original union of the former colonies, now sovereign states of New Hampshire, Massashusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersy, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia; under the Articles of Confederation (1777-1788) forming the several sovereign states into a single confederated union. (Later replaced in 1789 by the United States Constitution, shifting the union from a confederation, to an actual federation). The term was adopted because we WERE the only sovereign states at that time. Thus being the only UNION of STATES in the entirety of North and South America.... Thus becomming the UNITED STATES of AMERICA (our official name adopted by original convention).

It's not arrogance, it is a statement of fact. 13 Sovereign States entering into perpetrual union with one another. And the first presence of sovereign independent "states" forming in the "New World" continents.

USians is no more viable than UKians.

I am a Virginian (being from the Commonwealth of Virginia) and I am an American, being from the United States of America, and I am a North American, being from the North American continent.

If you call me anything other than the above, you will be, and deserve to be, treated like a pedantic fool.

If you don't want to call me an "American", then call me a Virginian.... You use a retarded term like "USian" or "United Stater" or something equaly ignorant; you will have the term repeatedly shoved up your hind end, and beat profusely around your head for hours on end till you use an appropriate term.
You really are unnecessarily rude!

I repeat, I always use the term American. I only included United Stater in that last post as an injection of a little humour, hence the smile next to it! I don't use the term USians, my posts are just to back up those that argue for the use of this term as having a valid argument. I have stated this quite clearly.

I really don't think it matters whether the United States was the first sovereign state in the Americas. There's obviously a country in every continent that has the right to that claim, but they don't call themselves "Europeans" or "Asians" or "Africans" etc.

You must see that the term American can be open to some confusion when it applies both to people specifically in the USA and also to those who inhabitant the Americas in general. I guess sometimes the EU uses the term Europeans specifically meaning EU citizens, which is equally ambiguous, as it doesn't speak for the whole of Europe. So really, it is not just the use of Americans that is arrogant, but of course, it is a more prominant arrogant usage.

I'm sorry that you must think that anyone who even disagrees with you has to be a "fool". You may disagree with me, which is your right, and I respect that... I don't think of you as or call you a fool however.

There's no defense for it. And the term "Ameircans" reffering to the people of the United States of America, is not "arrogant" usage. The term was adopted, because that defined the former Colonies as unique of all the others.. Being the only sovereign states (all others were under an Old-World crown). We were the only American states... (sic. United States of America)...

I'm glad you don't use it. However, that is no excuse for those that do. They are rather pedantic over it. Not really understanding WHY it's used.

Why should you call people from the United States of America, Americans? Because, that's exactly what our name is.

If they want to continue to use "USians" they will subsequently be reffered to as their new "proper" name under their own pedantic idiocy... Eurotrash.

Good practice, but only in certain occasions.

I don't like how they use it to ensure red tape. It looks a lot like being a sore loser.

However, the other side always complains. Someone just needs to put all politicians on Prozac.

There's no defense for it. And the term "Ameircans" reffering to the people of the United States of America, is not "arrogant" usage. The term was adopted, because that defined the former Colonies as unique of all the others.. Being the only sovereign states (all others were under an Old-World crown). We were the only American states... (sic. United States of America)...

I'm glad you don't use it. However, that is no excuse for those that do. They are rather pedantic over it. Not really understanding WHY it's used.

Why should you call people from the United States of America, Americans? Because, that's exactly what our name is.

If they want to continue to use "USians" they will subsequently be reffered to as their new "proper" name under their own pedantic idiocy... Eurotrash.

I still don't think you need to be rude about it. They have a legitimate argument whether you agree or not.

Perhaps you could call those that reside in EU, European Unionites or EUians or something in response... not to mention EFTAians and ASEANites, the permetations are virtually endless....

I know this is a loaded question, but please try not to tie it to the issue of appointing judges. The question is, is it a useful practice and under what circumstances or should it be done away with all together?

We shall not infringe on people's right to talk. If smeone wants to talk for 54 hours, let him or her. Preferably her.

Freedom of speech includes the freedom to speak of boring things. Luckily, we all have the freedom to ignore. Freedom is Great!

I still don't think you need to be rude about it. They have a legitimate argument whether you agree or not.

Perhaps you could call those that reside in EU, European Unionites or EUians or something in response... not to mention EFTAians and ASEANites, the permetations are virtually endless....

Why not simply reffer to them as French, Belgian, Germans, etc. Call Those from Canada, Canadians; those from the United States of Mexico, Mexicans; those from The United States of America, Americans; those from the Federal Republic of Brazil, Brazilians; those from the Republic of Peru, Peruvians; those from the Republic of Chile, Chilean; those from the Argentine Republic, Argentenians.

When you reffer to regional/continental name, you reffer to the contenent (Thus a Canadian is a North American; a Argentinian is a South American, a German is European, a Tibetan is Asian, a Ghanan is African).

And, if you're going to reffer to someone from the United States of America as an USians, or USAian; what are you going to call someone from the Republic of South Africa? If you reffer to them as South African, by your own logic; you're a hypocrit.

And, if you're going to reffer to someone from the United States of America as an USians, or USAian; what are you going to call someone from the Republic of South Africa? If you reffer to them as South African, by your own logic; you're a hypocrit.

There's no continent called South Africa as far as I'm aware. The South Africans always call themselves "South Africans' when they are wishing to express belonging to their country. They don't use "Africans" when being specific to RSA. They are of course Africans as well as South Africans.

I covered this earlier, see above re Central African Republic and Saudi Arabia etc.

Also see that it is not me that uses the terms USians etc, I'm just defending the logic and argument of those that do. I wouldn't normally do so, I just found the rebuffals so rude from a couple of contributers I felt I had to defend their right to an opinion without being abused!

There's no continent called South Africa as far as I'm aware. The South Africans always call themselves "South Africans' when they are wishing to express belonging to their country. They don't use "Africans" when being specific to RSA. They are of course Africans as well as South Africans.

I covered this earlier, see above re Central African Republic and Saudi Arabia etc.

Also see that it is not me that uses the terms USians etc, I'm just defending the logic and argument of those that do. I wouldn't normally do so, I just found the rebuffals so rude from a couple of contributers I felt I had to defend their right to an opinion without being abused!

There is also no continent called "America"... The continents are "North America" and "South America"... The only "America" is the United States of America....

There is also no continent called "America"... The continents are "North America" and "South America"... The only "America" is the United States of America....

There is the Americas. It's open to interpretation as to whether North America and South America are continents in their own right. It's a bit like the Europe/Eurasia argument. However, politically, the term Americas is used infinitely more often than Eurasia (which is if not never, almost never, used). Eurasia tends to be strictly a geographical term. For instance, you have bodies covering the whole of the Americas like the OAS.

You must see that the term American can be open to some confusion when it applies both to people specifically in the USA and also to those who inhabitant the Americas in general. I guess sometimes the EU uses the term Europeans specifically meaning EU citizens, which is equally ambiguous, as it doesn't speak for the whole of Europe. So really, it is not just the use of Americans that is arrogant, but of course, it is a more prominant arrogant usage.


There is no confusion. You try to call a Canadian an american, he will tell you he is Canadian. The same for a Mexican, a Columbian, a Brazilian, etc., etc.

Also, we live on the North American Continent. It is not called the American Continent.

There is no confusion. You try to call a Canadian an american, he will tell you he is Canadian. The same for a Mexican, a Columbian, a Brazilian, etc., etc.

Also, we live on the North American Continent. It is not called the American Continent.
I'm sorry, both politically and geographically, the Americas certainly does exist. (Good example: the Organisation of American States).

If you ask a Latin American what an American is, he or she will more than likely explain that it's someone who lives in the Americas. The Spanish term for somebody from USA is estadounidense.

Therefore, there is certainly a valid argument behind the people on here advocating USians or similar (United Stater sounds nicer!). As I have constantly repeated, personally I recognise that American is the de facto adjective for people and objects pertaining to USA. This is the word I use as it is in most commonly used in both English and in Swedish as an adjective in relation to USA. That does still leave it slightly ambiguous of course.

Of course, given that American more often than not relates to USA, I'm sure Canadians would immeadiately deny being an American for fear that you were suggesting they were from the United States. As we know, this is not considered desirable by Canadians. We also know that many Americans travelling in Europe and the rest of the world pretend to be Canadians for an easier life (less lectures on international law and politics to be endured!). ;)

There is the Americas. It's open to interpretation as to whether North America and South America are continents in their own right. It's a bit like the Europe/Eurasia argument. However, politically, the term Americas is used infinitely more often than Eurasia (which is if not never, almost never, used). Eurasia tends to be strictly a geographical term. For instance, you have bodies covering the whole of the Americas like the OAS.

They are seperate continental plates (as are Asia and Europe). There is really no debate on that issue... I was not aware there were people rejecting the scientific classification of "continent"...

estadounidense is improper... As it would apply to Mexicans as well.

They are seperate continental plates (as are Asia and Europe). There is really no debate on that issue... I was not aware there were people rejecting the scientific classification of "continent"...
There really is debate. Life is not black and white. For instance, in the Latin American mindset, the Americas is almost univerally considered to be the continent. North-America is considered as a region or a sub-continent. It's not just there, a good common simple example of the various opinions is the flag of the Olympic movement - the Americas are represented by a single ring, not two seperate rings (the rings in Olympic emblem represent the continents).

It's quite true that today the English-speaking world more often considers the Americas to be two continents; North America and South America. This is however relatively a recent concept. Originally the landmass of the Americas was known simply as America. Remember Columbus "discovering America" wasn't Columbus discovering the USA, America was the term coined for the entire new western hemospherical territory.

I really am not asking for people to change to start using USian, United Stater, USAish or any thing else. As I have said, I use and will continue to use American as the adjective for things and people pertaining to USA. It's just, one must recognise that there are legitimate reasons to argue that the term American shouldn't be used exclusively for things relating to USA. I recognise this fact - technically an American probably the adjective for the Americas as a whole. However, de facto, its usage in English (and Swedish, and in most European languages and uses as far as I know) does relate to USA.

There really is debate. Life is not black and white. For instance, in the Latin American mindset, the Americas is almost univerally considered to be the continent. North-America is considered as a region or a sub-continent. It's not just there, a good common simple example of the various opinions is the flag of the Olympic movement - the Americas are represented by a single ring, not two seperate rings (the rings in Olympic emblem represent the continents).

It's quite true that today the English-speaking world more often considers the Americas to be two continents; North America and South America. This is however relatively a recent concept. Originally the landmass of the Americas was known simply as America. Remember Columbus "discovering America" wasn't Columbus discovering the USA, America was the term coined for the entire new western hemospherical territory.

I really am not asking for people to change to start using USian, United Stater, USAish or any thing else. As I have said, I use and will continue to use American as the adjective for things and people pertaining to USA. It's just, one must recognise that there are legitimate reasons to argue that the term American shouldn't be used exclusively for things relating to USA. I recognise this fact - technically an American probably the adjective for the Americas as a whole. However, de facto, its usage in English (and Swedish, and in most European languages and uses as far as I know) does relate to USA.

And, if you're going to speak english, you're going to say "American"... I could care less what it is in "other" languages.... (Sic. Germany vs. Deutschland)... In english, the proper term for someone from the United States of America, or relating to it, is "American".

And, if you're going to speak english, you're going to say "American"... I could care less what it is in "other" languages.... (Sic. Germany vs. Deutschland)... In english, the proper term for someone from the United States of America, or relating to it, is "American".
I almost agree. In English the adjective relating to USA is de facto American. I think technically American relates to "of the Americas". However, as said, I generally use it in the de facto usage sense I describe, whilst acknowledging that people have the full right to use it correctly if they so wish.

Honest to God, if you don't stop using "USians" to refer to my Country, I'm going to give you the honor of being the very FIRST idiot to go on my "ignore" list! :mad:

Its my country too. I just perfer the ore accurate term so that no one confuss it with Canada, Mexica, the Conch Republic, or any other nation on the American continents.

NORTH AMERICA =/= AMERICA
CENTRAL AMERICA =/= AMERICA
SOUTH AMERICA =/= AMERICA



Lies. Have you ever pronounced "USisans" vocally? Usians? That is even MORE confusing. And my reaction isn't unnecessary. The term has no validity. Its Americans. Also, others seem to be more vulger than I do.



Someone gets it.


It isn't that difficult. U-S-ians. Yoo-ess-i-an-s. USers works well, too.

Lies. Have you ever pronounced "USisans" vocally? Usians? That is even MORE confusing. And my reaction isn't unnecessary. The term has no validity. Its Americans. Also, others seem to be more vulger than I do.




Sorry to bumb this once again but I couldn't resist... :D

Lies? You actually think that we speak English in Finland? Of course we don't say USians. We say yhdysvaltalainen. Would you have understood it? I doubt so. That's why I wrote Usians. Straight translation of yhdysvaltalainen.

IMO Usians is much easier to pronounce than yhdysvaltalainen. Now you try.

I almost agree. In English the adjective relating to USA is de facto American. I think technically American relates to "of the Americas". However, as said, I generally use it in the de facto usage sense I describe, whilst acknowledging that people have the full right to use it correctly if they so wish.

But, correct usage also applies to the United States of America as well. Both are correct usage, or apply general adjectives (Americans in general, North Americans, South Americans).


Sorry to bumb this once again but I couldn't resist...

Lies? You actually think that we speak English in Finland? Of course we don't say USians. We say yhdysvaltalainen. Would you have understood it? I doubt so. That's why I wrote Usians. Straight translation of yhdysvaltalainen.

IMO Usians is much easier to pronounce than yhdysvaltalainen. Now you try.

The issue is that you're speaking english here. Which means you use the english words. What you're advocating is transliteration (and not translation). Actual translation means translating ideas as well as words; Transliterating is just conveying words accross in literal manner between languages, regardless of proper usage in the destination language, or its rules.

For example, a transliteration of "comme ci, comme ça" from french to english, renders "like this, like that".... However, in translating you would apply it to standards of usage in english, and it would be rendered as "So so".

When you're speaking normative spoken language, you translate (not transliterate, unless you're totally ignorant of the language your discoursing in)... So a proper rendering of what would be literally "Unitedstatesian" in another language, in english would be rendered "American"... Just as if you were to ask someone from Germany how they would say "German" in their language, they would reply "Deutsch", if you asked a Frenchman the same, they would reply "Allemand". The Dutch, "Duits". Italians, "Tedesco".

"Estadounidense" (Spanish and Portuguese), is used both for "United States citizens", because "Americano" in original usage was reserved exclusively for Spanish and Portuguese colonies (they would not reffer to Canadians, for example as "Americano" any more than US citizens).

Italians merely reffer to "United States" avioding improper application, or forced improper usage.

Russians reffer to "Pindos", which was initially a derogatory term for "Greeks" during hostilities, which has been re-applied to United States Citizens. Some other perjorative words are used as well in other parts, "Gringo", "Ami", "Amsci", "Seppo"... Sometimes applied to US Citizens, othertimes to "foreigners" in general (anyone who is either caucasian, or does not speak their language)... Roughly the equivalent of words such as "spick", "kike", etc.

However, when I reffer to a person, speaking in their native tongue; I'm going to use the proper term in their language, not my own.... So to a Spaniard, they are "Español", to the German, "Deutsch" (translitterated 'german'/'germanus' means "Brother" or "Cousin"), to a Dutchman, "Nederlands".

English is a functional language of sorts. It is fairly easy to apply adjectives to broaden the scope of normative words for greater application. You do not need to degrade the language through transliterations....

But what of those of us who live in the United States of America and beleive that "American" is a inaccurate and derogatory term that perverts that ideals upon which our nation was founded. The United States of America is a federation of independant States that chose to band together out of mutual self interest. Yet "America" is a singular term. It represents this nation as a single entity that is seen as some to be an "evil empire" of sorts. It is not. It is a collection of 50 independant entities. "USian", or "USer" represents this better than the term "American"

The majority rule is fairly stupid.


Because the idea of a minority rule sounds much better doesn't it! :rolleyes:

However, when I reffer to a person, speaking in their native tongue; I'm going to use the proper term in their language, not my own.... So to a Spaniard, they are "Español", to the German, "Deutsch" (translitterated 'german'/'germanus' means "Brother" or "Cousin"), to a Dutchman, "Nederlands".


How noble of you!

Is anyone actually confused by the term 'American' or is it just an excuse?

However, in the spirit of refering to nations not by their proper name, but by their honorific, I shall now call all people from France "Republicans".

But what of those of us who live in the United States of America and beleive that "American" is a inaccurate and derogatory term that perverts that ideals upon which our nation was founded. The United States of America is a federation of independant States that chose to band together out of mutual self interest. Yet "America" is a singular term. It represents this nation as a single entity that is seen as some to be an "evil empire" of sorts. It is not. It is a collection of 50 independant entities. "USian", or "USer" represents this better than the term "American"

Actually, then you would reffer to citizens of the several states independently, as opposed to "USian" (which isn't even a proper usage word given language rules). If you're not going to call me an American, call me a Virginian.

"America" is the actual name of a country (The United States of America) just as "Mexico" is the actual name of a country (The United States of Mexico)... Respectively "American" and "Mexican"("Mexicano") in their respective languages (or equivalency)... Usage past that differs, when reffering to general scope (The Americas) they are "Americans" in same application as people of the actual "country" "America" are Americans, because of language rules in English... If you wish to distinguish, you use root terminology, so.... and reffer to either "people of America" (the United States of America, the country), or "people of the Americas" (the two American Continents, North and South), "Latin America" (the spanish and portuguese speaking nations of the Americas)

Is anyone actually confused by the term 'American' or is it just an excuse?

However, in the spirit of refering to nations not by their proper name, but by their honorific, I shall now call all people from France "Republicans".

I use American to refer to people from the USA. It's to do with semiotics, it may not be "right" but everybody does it anyway and it's pretty much agreed by most people. Brazil may be in South America, but are Brazilians, Canada in North America but Canadians. It is a bit odd though when you think about it, it's like the French calling themselves Europeans, and no other country is thought of as European even though they are in Europe. However I just really couldn't give a f**k.

THIS is a filibuster right being misused. Instead of actually discussing the topic that brought us all here and voting in the poll, we're dicussing the validity of the term "USian" versus "American."

Now that we've established that, I'd like to chip in my two bits :)

People in the USA are some of the only ones to refer to themselves as American, as if they own both continents. Throughout spanish-speaking nations (particularly in South and Central America), people from the USA are referred to as "Estadounidense," which literally translates to "United States-ian" or....USian.

That's just the way things are; no one calls someone from the US "American" as their nationality except the USians :)

Look up a post or two to see the difference between translation and transliteration.

Look up a post or two to see the difference between translation and transliteration.
This issue has little or nothing to do with translation/transliteration. It is about the actual meaning of the word American... i.e. the argument that it correctly refers to the Americas as a whole, despite the more common English-language word usage. Just because something is more commonly used does not mean it is correct. For instance, de jure the USA measures distances in kilometres, however, de facto as you can tell from American road-signs, miles are very much the dominent system of measurement. De facto I use American as an adjective relating to USA. De jure I'm probably wrong to do so or at best being ambiguous in the extreme.

It's interesting and ironic that this post about filibustering has in effect been filibustered!!! Maybe it is in tribute to the thread subject :D

Is anyone actually confused by the term 'American' or is it just an excuse?

However, in the spirit of refering to nations not by their proper name, but by their honorific, I shall now call all people from France "Republicans".

It's funny you mention the French. I just returned from France. People would great me in French which I sadly don't speak. All of them switched to English and said "Ahh you are American?..."

I've read the first and last pgs of what you guys think about this, but I think it needs to be clarified specifically what it is to fillibuster.

Congress works off a modified system of rules called parliamentary procedure; a system grounded from British government and further modified by and American comm. officer at the turn of the 19th century. Basically, the purpose of it was to make sure business got done in an efficient as well as effective manner tha repected the rights of the majority, minority, those present, and those not.

The fillibuster is a last ditch technique that anyone who's seen the cablevision commercial with that guy listing all of the available channels can vaguely understand. It is the technique that allows any member in a body to speak as long as he wants as long as he does not sit down, take a considerable break from speech, deter from germane topic, or even go to the bathroom.

There are other less abnoxious ways to delay business without standing up in front of everyone flapping yer yapper such as laying an item of business on the table, postponing definitely and indefinitely, and plenty more; but using the tactic just to time out an item of business is more disgusting than the Presidential ability to pocket veto (refusing to sign or veto a provided bill and just letting it time out its 10 days to be considered by the President).

I hope this explains the basics of the motion and why it's an immature and irresponsible tactic that should not be used in our democratic-republic. It essentially stops business and puts us in a deadlock that shuts government down while reducing government approval and stability. Not only does it hurt those in favor of a position, but the people eventually get cranky and decide that those opposed are not helping any cause, pro or con, and have to grow up or be thrown out.

I hope this explains the basics of the motion and why it's an immature and irresponsible tactic that should not be used in our democratic-republic. It essentially stops business and puts us in a deadlock that shuts government down while reducing government approval and stability. Not only does it hurt those in favor of a position, but the people eventually get cranky and decide that those opposed are not helping any cause, pro or con, and have to grow up or be thrown out.

It could be. However, the party in charge shouldn't be the ones doing it.
----
edit
----

I think it's ok for it to remain. In the matter of the Judges, only 10 out of the over 200 were filabustered.....

If it should be used in our democratic-republic, then it should be put to the people.

I've read the first and last pgs of what you guys think about this, but I think it needs to be clarified specifically what it is to fillibuster.

Congress works off a modified system of rules called parliamentary procedure; a system grounded from British government and further modified by and American comm. officer at the turn of the 19th century. Basically, the purpose of it was to make sure business got done in an efficient as well as effective manner tha repected the rights of the majority, minority, those present, and those not.

The fillibuster is a last ditch technique that anyone who's seen the cablevision commercial with that guy listing all of the available channels can vaguely understand. It is the technique that allows any member in a body to speak as long as he wants as long as he does not sit down, take a considerable break from speech, deter from germane topic, or even go to the bathroom.

There are other less abnoxious ways to delay business without standing up in front of everyone flapping yer yapper such as laying an item of business on the table, postponing definitely and indefinitely, and plenty more; but using the tactic just to time out an item of business is more disgusting than the Presidential ability to pocket veto (refusing to sign or veto a provided bill and just letting it time out its 10 days to be considered by the President).

I hope this explains the basics of the motion and why it's an immature and irresponsible tactic that should not be used in our democratic-republic. It essentially stops business and puts us in a deadlock that shuts government down while reducing government approval and stability. Not only does it hurt those in favor of a position, but the people eventually get cranky and decide that those opposed are not helping any cause, pro or con, and have to grow up or be thrown out.


Your description isn't exactly accurate to the current United States Senate version of the fillibuster.

First, and most importantly, the Senate is the only body that has a fillibuster because it is the only body that permits unlimited floor time. The House of Representatives determines limits on floor time seperatly for every bill. This is somewhat inefficient but it means no fillibusters.

Second, there has been a "gentleman's agreement" in effect between the parties for several decades. Instead of wasting time by ranting on the floor a Senator will simply announce his intention to do so. An informal vote will be taken. If a certain number of Senators support the bill there will be no fillibuster. If this number is not met the bill will be set aside and the Senate will move on to the next item of business. Supporters of the bill can try to gain more support to defeat the fillibuster, but rarely do.

This agreement was broken once recently on the issue of Judiciary appointment but I believe it is back in effect.

Third, The topic doesn't have to be germane. US Senators have been known to simply read from books for for countless hours. So long as they speak it doesn't matter what they are saying.

Fourth, and possibly more important then the first point, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington was the greatest movie ever made.