Daniel Hannan Sums Up The US Political System In 140 Characters (Or Less)

Tyler Durden's picture

Outspoken MEP Daniel Hannan summed up the day's political machinations rather aptly

 

 

 

Of course, as is the "rule" it would seem in US politics, what one has said in the past is irrelevant compared to what one needs now...

 

 

 

But back to Daniel to explain...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
NOTaREALmerican's picture

Bah,  it's just a piece of paper, get over it.

Bad Attitude's picture

The Constitution may be a piece of paper, but it is the piece of paper that set down the rules for the operation of our government. Dear Leader and Reid may find the Constitution a hindrance right now. But, when the political power shifts - as it undoubtedly will - they will suddenly want to use the Constitution to protect themselves.

Payback will be a bitch.

Forward (over the cliff)!

ZerOhead's picture

This just in from Harare...

Obama has won the 2013 Robert G. Mugabe Freedom & Democracy Prize

LetThemEatRand's picture

Putting aside which Team is right or wrong, the Fillibuster rule is not a Constitutional animal.  It is a rule of the Senate.  As it stands, it is nothing more than another tool of the Teams to pretend there is disagreement between them so as to generate press over said pretend disagreement.  I say let the parties flounder around and pass stupid legislation and show the population that it doesn't matter who is in charge.  What are they going to do?  Create an NSA that spies on all of us?  Create secret prisons?  Create a Department of Homeland Security that militarizes police and buys billions of hollow points?  Create a cartel of private bankers called the Fed that openly rigs the markets and enriches the oligarchs at the expense of the middle class?  Make us all take our shoes off at the airport because some loon put lighter fluid in his shoes 10 years ago?  It.  Doesn't.  Matter.

Overfed's picture

Awww...gee, they would never do any of that, would they?

Deo vindice's picture

That's the trouble when you view the Constitution as an "evolving document".

When absolutes are jettisoned from society, then that society is absolutely doomed to failure.

In so many areas, we are simply reaping now what has been sown for the past 75-100 years.

Patriot Eke's picture

My rights are natural, and a document, which was written as a reminder of those rights for the federal government to defend, might just be a piece of paper.  It may be amended by an ignorant majority.  Executive orders and Supreme Court decisions may reverse it.  However, my natural rights do not change.

Obama may be concerned about the document getting in his way, but he had better remember millions of people with rifles will be more difficult to conquer.

Joe Davola's picture

Hey, I've got an idea - let's hold some congressional hearings and strenuously demand they play by the rules!

And hold our breath, and maybe have a march - or better yet a sit-in, and, and write letters to the editor.

Aw fuck it, where's that bottle of tequila.

 

And off topic, but I see on the front page of MSN that some tigers died in the Gaza Strip zoo.  Is this the first "concentration camp" that has a zoo?

Boris Alatovkrap's picture

Also has many burlesque club and sleazy lounge, that is where to derive name.

MontgomeryScott's picture

Boris, you are CORRECT.

Over in Haifa, they have a club called the 'Gaza Strip', where all types of sex acts are simulated (including bestiality).

They THOUGHT that Barry would play the part of the 'donkey' (with a slim, but busty, pure-blooded Zionist female), but instead, he turned out to be a JACKASS. Even the Knesset is turning on him now. Bibi is having a shit-fit, and...

The 'COMMUNITY-ORGANIZER-IN CHIEF' is starting to look like the punk-tuckus that he really IS, even to his so-called 'supportards' WITHIN the CONUS, as well as WITHOUT.

 

 

El Crusty's picture

the real question is who is doing the simulating- the women or the men?

markmotive's picture

Newsflash! The consitution hasn't meant sh!t to the government for at least 50 years.

16 Reasons You Should Listen to George Orwell

http://www.planbeconomics.com/2013/06/16-reasons-you-should-listen-to-ge...

JohnnyBriefcase's picture

Bad Attitude - "when the political power shifts - as it undoubtedly will - they will suddenly want to use the Constitution to protect themselves.

Payback will be a bitch"

 

When the political power shifts to what?

GetZeeGold's picture

 

 

 

The British are coming....and thank God for that!

Boris Alatovkrap's picture

In middle east bedouin culture, only man is allow participation and all women are excised of genitalia, so likely is men simulate. Boris is throw up little vomit in mouth and is now excused.

Truthseeker2's picture

***

Obama -- A constitutional lawyer who presides as though there is NO Constitution in place! ! !

"The extraordinary initiative taken to pass the inherently flawed Affordable Care Act during the most severe recession since the Great Depression is a perfect example of his terrible, yet purposeful, timing. So is the rest of his legislative agenda for the remainder of his second term. Pushing an equally flawed immigration proposal right in the midst of the destruction of America’s middle class is both wrongheaded and ill-advised. And yet everyone knows exactly what direction he will go in — MISDIRECTION 24/7."

.

http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=2729

.


DangerClams's picture

In Middle East bedouin culture, mouth vomit is considered delicacy.

Drifter's picture

There is no such thing as "natural rights".  In fact the whole "rights" concept is ludicrous.

The only so-called "rights" you have are those other people recognize and honor.  If they don't recognize and honor your so-called "rights", they don't exist in any practical sense.  

The proof of this is all around you.  How long has the government been ignoring your so-called "rights"?  Years?  Decades?

"rights" is a foolish effort to push back against tyranny without a fight.  You hope government will honor your so-called "rights" so you don't have to fight their tyranny with guns.  

But when they don't honor your so-called "rights", the guns never come out.  You just whine and bitch.  Or sue them in court maybe, good luck with that.

"rights" is the opiate of sheep, just like religion.  In fact "rights" is a religious belief.  It's a fantasy just like any other religious belief.

The Bill of Rights is pretty much ignored by this government except when it benefits them, just like the Constitution is ignored except when it benefits them.  Because the guns haven't come out.  And they won't come out.  Not in America.

We're way past the time guns should have come out.  Tyranny we have today is far worse than what triggered the founders to bring guns out against British tyranny. 

Even Obamacare won't bring out the guns, and if Obamacare won't bring 'em out, nothing will.

"but he had better remember millions of people with rifles will be more difficult to conquer." 

Bullshit.  Those rifles won't ever come out.

NidStyles's picture

Well then you won't mind if we just come on over and lynch the shit out of you then, would you? Seeing as how you are telling us you do not have a right to flee or fight back.

 

You morons are so easy to disprove. That whole the state is the only authority that can grant right's argument is getting a bit old, and it was always incorrect. It doesn't matter if you refrain from saying the state instead of society, or that you keep using the word WE to trying and make about individuals as a collective, you are still making the same erroneous argument the statists make to justify themselves and their violations of rights daily.

 

Your ignorance and position is part of the problem, not the solution you half-wit.

Drifter's picture

Your idiocy is boldy (and humorously) displayed in your comment.  I didn't say any of the things you imply I said. 

And what's this "right to fight back" bullshit?   You don't need a "right" to do that.  If you choose to fight it's because you want to maintain your freedom, or regain your freedom.  It has nothing to do with any so-called "right".

Believe what you want.  I don't care. 

Bottom line, the guns ain't coming out, not now, not ever.  You have the guns but you don't have the guts.  America will go right on into communism, fascism, police state, whatever you want to call it, and the guns won't ever come out to fight it, because you don't have the guts to do it.

new game's picture

i have to agree with drifter.  nobody wants to be the sacrificial lamb.

many reason but who has stepped forward to do the deed?

behind the scene prepping, yeh, because that is easy

and avoids confrontation...

just sayin what im seein

Boris Alatovkrap's picture

Boris is have similar problem in Copper Mining operation for test of ground voltage differential of subterranean copper deposit... cannot find volunteer.

kralizec's picture

Harry Reid is volunteer, him you take?

BTW-Nice to see you back in action Boris.

Boris Alatovkrap's picture

For particular job, requirement is worker must to be well grounded. Reid is not so well grounded.

Ar-Pharazôn's picture

maaaaaaaaan.... you're sadly right... that's what i m saying since years now

mick_richfield's picture

Natural rights derive from human nature.  Natural law is observable, not invented.  What is 'right' is not defined by what other people recognize.  It's true that rights must be defended, or evil or confused people will encroach on them.

Evil today is more sophisticated than when it wore a British uniform.  Back then it said "Britain is still our sovereign."  Today it says "The majority voted for me.  That's democracy."   

It was lying then, and it's lying now.

It would like nothing better than for the rifles to come out. 

The intensification of tyranny recently is a sign of weakness, not strength.  Real power is getting what you want without the cattle noticing and becoming restless.

It's more possible to fight it now than it ever has been. 

What does it fear?

Sam Clemons's picture

EXACTLY!  I get so tired of hearing "freedom isn't free."  Natural rights - Um, yes it is, all individuals SHOULD be born into freedom.  Governments, by and large, are the only entities that take away freedom.

 

 

nmewn's picture

Yes it is "a tool" of the Senate for its use or abuse.

The Senate is completely fucked anyways as an institution of the Republic as created. Not only was it supposed to perform the function of slowing down the "whims of democracy" and all its insanity of the moment, it was supposed to be a representation of the individual states governments.

That is to say, not popularly elected, but Senators chosen by the individual states legislatures/govenors who were elected by the people of those states...to look after the individual states interests...NOT the nations interests as a whole.

Now its nothing but a crime syndicate...thank you Willam Jennings Bryan...fuckwad.

lewy14's picture

Completely agreed with you and LTER here.

What is interesting to me is the information this act by Reid conveys.

The game theoretic implications are obvious - this is a "defection" - and just as obviously the Democrats seem not to worry about the consequences.

Implication being that they feel confident in their permanent majority - there will never again be GOP control over the Senate, or a GOP President. Plausible, considering that Chris Christie is effectively part of the D establishment and the rest of the GOP insiders are spending more time trying to crush the Tea Party than the Democrats. The GOP would much rather be the permanent loyal opposition and rake influence $$ from that position rather than risk governing. (After Bush, I see their point.)

Having to govern in coalition with actual Constitutional, Liberty minded people from the Tea Party is the GOP nightmare - not Obama and his ilk.

The Democrats of course know this and are happy to oblige. The Democrats also pick up added urgency from their base - now all the Senate races become very high stakes because they will determine court appointments which will last decades. It could be that the money that Reid just attracted to the Senate races will allow them to keep that slim majority; after that, the next President is at worst a RINO who can be kept in check by the bureaucracy and the press, and after that, the demographics and dependency kick in and the nation is permanently blue.

I realize that reasonable people may disagree and claim that it's misdirection to worry / favor one team above the other, but it seems prudent to acknowledge that the terms of the game have shifted. When the powers that be assume the form of an institutional party with a permanent majority, then yes, that team becomes the enemy.

Chuck Walla's picture

Jeepers, lewy14, you are scaring the hell out of me. The criminals are fully in charge now with no brakes except the vote. And that is in doubt.

 

FORWARD SOVIET!

 

We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.


 

~ Ayn Rand

NidStyles's picture

It merely disproves any notion that there was was any real opposition or separate entity within the senate that was not for government largesse.

Chump's picture

This is one of the best comments I've read.  Probably the best.  Complete and succinct.

Crawdaddy's picture

As long as we are revisiting precedent, this is a great time to bring back caning.

In May of 1856, Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner delivered a speech to Congress against slavery, personally insulting several pro-slavery politicians. In retaliation, South Carolina Congressman Preston Brooks beat Sumner in the Senate chamber with a cane. The event left Sumner unconscious. After three years of recovery, he returned to the Senate.

http://www.c-span.org/History/Events/The-Civil-War-The-Caning-of-Charles...

 

 

A Nanny Moose's picture

There seems to be little to do, but watch the collapse. Agree to a point. That "point" however, begins where bodies start showing up in, or dissappearing from, the streets. What do you perceive as the outcome of allowing it all to run its course?

At what point do they come for you? For me? After familiars have become leverage? That is where this path leads, if history is any indication.

When do the productive Go Galt?

WhackoWarner's picture

Bought it you mean of course.

SDShack's picture

I can sum it up in less than 140 characters.

0zer0 = Sociopath 101

Constitution = How to stop a Sociopath

Running On Bingo Fuel's picture

+10 for the brevity. +100 for the precision.

Over.

NOTaREALmerican's picture

Re:  Constitution = How to stop a Sociopath

Well, that was the intent, but the sociopaths were only slowed down.    We lost the second world war when Big-MIC wasn't disbanded.   It's been nothing but a growing police state ever sense.

The "Conservatives" turned a blind eye to the police state because they loved Big-MIC and wanted to "beat the godless commies" regardless of the cost and the "Liberals" love all Big-Gov as to a "Liberal" it's really about the graft potential of the scam.

Then you've got this entire "corporations" as "people" concept but "Conservative" love Big-Corp more than they love Big-MIC so that was never questioned.

Yeah,  we haven't had much of a constitution "of by and for da people" for some time now.  It's been "of by and for those who can own the government" for at least 100+ years.

LetThemEatRand's picture

Keep preachin' brother.  You nailed it.  I would only add that some conservatives are well-meaning, and some liberals are well-meaning.  But in the end, most are as you describe and all feed the machine.

mick_richfield's picture

It ended when we lost control of money.

Money touches everything.  If there are people who can create money, they can control anything, with no need of agreement from citizens.

t0mmyBerg's picture

Let me just say before I get to the meat of things that you can probably count on one hand the number of people who have more strongly negative feelings toward Obama than I do in the US.

That said this issue is not about the constitution, it is about Senate rules.  Longstanding Senate rules in a body that takes its rules seriously.  But what it is not is anything to do with the Constitution.  Now again do not get me wrong, Obama pisses on the Constitution every day in other ways, but strangely, this one he is being called out on is not one of them, unless of course he coerced Reid into using the Nuke option.  But that would be more a permission thing than an order because if it were up to Reid, all Republicans would be in jail or worse.  Kind of the way I think of the Left and also statists on the right..

Anyways, perhaps we should not  take the MEP (what, Member European Parliament?) too seriously, though he has the right sentiment.

kchrisc's picture

"Paging all section 3, article 3 guillotines. You're needed in DC. Stat!"

baldski's picture

Hey, Bad Attitude, Where in the fucking constitution does it say the Senate needs 60 votes to pass a law or confirm an appointment? You are one dumb shit!

Oldwood's picture

As you suggest, the filibuster is not part of the constitution, but it has been a senate rule since 1789, and many a majority has resisted its elimination simply because it gives protection to voting minorities in congress. This is not a insignificant procedural modification and is not referred to as the nuclear option for nothing. IT IS a symbol of the blatant disregard this government has had for all pre-existing rules, and tells me this is part of the end game. They have done much to insure a consistent voting block by increasing the corruptive forces of dependency in corporations as well as the general population, as well as divisiveness, not to mention governmental agency mission creep that has nfluenced virtually every aspect of society. I don't thick the democrats think they will ever see another republican majority again, much less conservative. The tipping point for so many aspects of society has been passed and the progressives see it as an oportunity to capture the reins of power indefinitely.

grekko's picture

You have got to be kidding me Oldwood.  Do you really believe that the Repubs (augggh! Spit on them as well) want to become a third rate party in a two party system?  All they have to do is keep screaming about Obamacsare and behind the scenes make sure that it goes into effect on schedule, then keep on screaming.  When the "sticker shock" finally hits everyone in the country (except the freeloaders), the 2014 elections will give the Repubs a big enough majority to do whatever they want, filibuster or not, thanks to the new rule.

I agree with most people here that both partys are super corrupt and also bought and paid for.  Congress?  Representative of the people?  That's another fairytale.  When has it ever been?  It has always boiled down to money, but that may be changing.  Soon it may be money AND guns.  They got the money and we got the guns.  As someone once said, a smith and wesson beats four of a kind!

yofish's picture

All you simpletons do realize that the word filibuster isn't in the real, actual, non- fantasised Constitution? 

Occams_Chainsaw's picture

I just took a constitution in my toilet.....