| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"fuller" |
| Date: |
20 May 2005 03:14:58 PM |
| Object: |
AP: 78 percent say Senate shouldn't be Bush's rubberstamp |
May 20, 2005
Poll: Senate Should Examine Federal Judges
Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- More than three-quarters of Americans say the Senate
should aggressively examine federal judicial nominees and not just
approve them because they are the president's choices.
That's one of the few aspects of this divisive issue that gets
widespread agreement, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll
released Friday....
The poll found 78 percent believe the Senate should take an "assertive
role" examining judicial nominees. There were majorities among each
political affiliation _ Democrats, Republicans and independent.
"I'm probably more on the conservative side, but I think the Senate
should closely look at each nominee," said Heidi Densel, a Republican
from Fort Wayne, Ind.
Democrat Carol Zebott of Duluth, Minn., said she wants the Senate to
examine the judicial choices of the president because "I just think he
has been making a lot of bad decisions lately."...
~~ SNIP ~~
.
|
|
| User: "John" |
|
| Title: Re: 78 percent say Senate shouldn't be Bush's rubberstamp |
20 May 2005 04:54:06 PM |
|
|
"fuller" <fuller@ceoce.net> wrote in message
news:38hs81ps98j5bgll8q2d0lqjcelphvpaqu@4ax.com...
May 20, 2005
Poll: Senate Should Examine Federal Judges
Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- More than three-quarters of Americans say the Senate
should aggressively examine federal judicial nominees and not just
approve them because they are the president's choices.
That's one of the few aspects of this divisive issue that gets
widespread agreement, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll
released Friday....
The poll found 78 percent believe the Senate should take an "assertive
role" examining judicial nominees. There were majorities among each
political affiliation _ Democrats, Republicans and independent.
"I'm probably more on the conservative side, but I think the Senate
should closely look at each nominee," said Heidi Densel, a Republican
from Fort Wayne, Ind.
Democrat Carol Zebott of Duluth, Minn., said she wants the Senate to
examine the judicial choices of the president because "I just think he
has been making a lot of bad decisions lately."...
~~ SNIP ~~
I see the left-wing propaganda forces are alive and well over at the
Associated Press... :)
Too late... the vote is Tuesday.
John
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wm James" |
|
| Title: Re: AP: 78 percent say Senate shouldn't be Bush's rubberstamp |
21 May 2005 10:42:04 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 20 May 2005 15:14:58 -0500, fuller <fuller@ceoce.net> wrote:
May 20, 2005
Poll: Senate Should Examine Federal Judges
Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- More than three-quarters of Americans say the Senate
should aggressively examine federal judicial nominees and not just
approve them because they are the president's choices.
I agree with that! They should agressively examine federal judicial
nominees and then vote to accept of reject them.
That's one of the few aspects of this divisive issue that gets
widespread agreement, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll
released Friday....
The poll found 78 percent believe the Senate should take an "assertive
role" examining judicial nominees. There were majorities among each
political affiliation _ Democrats, Republicans and independent.
No problem. They certianly should vote according to their principles
and their believes regarding the suitability of the nominees.
"I'm probably more on the conservative side, but I think the Senate
should closely look at each nominee," said Heidi Densel, a Republican
from Fort Wayne, Ind.
Who could argue wuth that?
Democrat Carol Zebott of Duluth, Minn., said she wants the Senate to
examine the judicial choices of the president because "I just think he
has been making a lot of bad decisions lately."...
OK, so she should vote against any that she feels is a bad choice.
William R. James
.
|
|
|
| User: "*碔3I3反`*" |
|
| Title: Re: AP: 78 percent say Senate shouldn't be Bush's rubberstamp |
24 May 2005 04:27:17 PM |
|
|
Duogthon 21 May 2005 22:42:04 -0500, Reaxloh Wm James
<wrjames.remove@spamreaper.org> guzazelrugham:
On Fri, 20 May 2005 15:14:58 -0500, fuller <fuller@ceoce.net> wrote:
May 20, 2005
Poll: Senate Should Examine Federal Judges
Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- More than three-quarters of Americans say the Senate
should aggressively examine federal judicial nominees and not just
approve them because they are the president's choices.
I agree with that! They should agressively examine federal judicial
nominees and then vote to accept of reject them.
["just vote" said 2 more times snipped] - William R. James
But not filibuster? u never said it, but that's what your saying?
If not, sorry.
What's missing here is - What is a filibuster's role?
A filibuster is basically the last "check & balance" that a minority party, or
the losing side in a legislation battle has to block it.
It is used rarely, and only when the minority feels *strongly* enough about the
legislation/appointee to stick their neck out to stop it!
I remind u, even if you disagree with the reason for the block (on the majority
side), checks and balances are always needed in a Democracy, the more the
merrier. Every time you even think about destroying a check and balance you are
destroying the quality of our Democracy; It gives corruption and powerful
influences the chance, a foothold, to control our Government. Without it a
ruling party controlling all bodies could ramrod anything down the throats of
the rest (sound familiar?).
If the minority dares go to the extreme to block legislation or an appointment
with a filibuster (which is used rarely!), then there is probably very good
cause for it.
This may not always be the case (a good cause), but you have to respect
the role of the filibuster as the last resort to block legislation or an
appointee that the minority feels would be a detriment to our government and
society!
It's not about judges anymore when you talk of banning filibusters, it's about
gnawing away at the checks and balances that are central to a working
Democracy.
-
--
--------- |3ill|3 -----------
" In the 1980s capitalism triumphed over communism. In the l990s it triumphed over democracy. " - David Korten, The Post-Corporate World, p1
.
|
|
|
| User: "Werner Hetzner" |
|
| Title: Re: AP: 78 percent say Senate shouldn't be Bush's rubberstamp |
24 May 2005 10:09:28 PM |
|
|
*碔3I3反`* wrote:
...
It's not about judges anymore when you talk of banning filibusters, it's about
gnawing away at the checks and balances that are central to a working
Democracy.
-
It was another close election. We find ourselves warring against each
other - - red states and blue; 'them against us'; Left vs. Right;
Republicans vs. Democrats. These forces are just about equal. Each seeks
to take, keep and expand the power to impose values on the other.
Campaign finance laws not withstanding, this election cost much more
than the last. Both sides spent as if in combat and more than many
countries spend on a real war. All else -- other ideas for example -- is
a distraction we can no longer afford in this new war between Americans.
Win at all cost! Tons of money, advertising campaigns, phone banks,
promises, defections, Get out the vote battalions, voter registration
shenanigans, vote fraud, hoards of pollsters, and armies of lawyers have
become our new reality. Except for that other war, the media covered
little else and ignored other candidates.
Why is an election so important? Is it because so much power has never
been so concentrated in so few? If power corrupts, what has happened to
our perspective? Cant there be more colors than just red or blue? We
keep getting evidence that politics as usual is dysfunctional. So why do
we allow ourselves to see no other choices? Is choice even possible
without diversity? What do you have when you have no choice? Cars arent
either red or blue so why must we all be limited by Republican or
Democrat rules?
Prohibitions, limitations and mandates now rule us all. Red voters hope
to impose their values on the blue and visa versa. The red forces will
limit, mandate or prohibit some things while blue cohorts would do the
same to others. No matter the outcome, one half of the electorate will
have gained more power to impose its values at the expense of the other
half. Isnt that expense becoming unbearable and unsustainable for all?
Should we be ruled by anyone? Should values be forced on us and choices
restricted by any party? Cant we try to liberate instead of regulate
each other? Wasnt America supposed to be about voluntary agreement
instead of forced obedience?
Libertarian Party of New York
http://www.NY.LP.org/choice
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/index.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wm James" |
|
| Title: Re: AP: 78 percent say Senate shouldn't be Bush's rubberstamp |
25 May 2005 10:00:02 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 24 May 2005 16:27:17 -0500, *碔3I3反`*
<tweettweet@mooo.baaa.bleeat.com> wrote:
Duogthon 21 May 2005 22:42:04 -0500, Reaxloh Wm James
<wrjames.remove@spamreaper.org> guzazelrugham:
On Fri, 20 May 2005 15:14:58 -0500, fuller <fuller@ceoce.net> wrote:
May 20, 2005
Poll: Senate Should Examine Federal Judges
Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- More than three-quarters of Americans say the Senate
should aggressively examine federal judicial nominees and not just
approve them because they are the president's choices.
I agree with that! They should agressively examine federal judicial
nominees and then vote to accept of reject them.
["just vote" said 2 more times snipped] - William R. James
But not filibuster? u never said it, but that's what your saying?
If not, sorry.
That's what I am saying, yes. I see absolutely no logic to letting
one or more nutjobs stand there and talk about his underwear or any
other nonsense to waste time until everyone just decides to go on to
other business. It's silly.
What's missing here is - What is a filibuster's role?
It's only role is to let those elected avoud the responsibility of
doing their job and voting. It has no legitimate purpose, it never
did.
A filibuster is basically the last "check & balance" that a minority party, or
the losing side in a legislation battle has to block it.
Nonsense! The US Constitution is the law, the other two brances of
government are the checks and balances. Political parties have no
special position in the constitution. I don't can't what clubs or
orgs the elected official choosed to belong to, what difference does
it make? We don't elect parties! But even if we did, the minority
LOST, that's why they are minority!
It is used rarely, and only when the minority feels *strongly* enough about the
legislation/appointee to stick their neck out to stop it!
Stick their neck out? ROTFLMAO! Be serious! They are whining and it
doesn't risk anything but their time and not even that in reality.
The political whores in both parties have rigged it to becomea
pseudo-filibuster so they can do it without actually having to stand
there and whine for 30 hours at a time.
I remind u, even if you disagree with the reason for the block (on the majority
side), checks and balances are always needed in a Democracy, the more the
merrier. Every time you even think about destroying a check and balance you are
destroying the quality of our Democracy; It gives corruption and powerful
influences the chance, a foothold, to control our Government. Without it a
ruling party controlling all bodies could ramrod anything down the throats of
the rest (sound familiar?).
We don't live in a democracy, and I wouldn't want to live in a
democracy. We have a constitutional republic. The Constitution is the
law and is not subjject to majority rule. Only half on one of the
three branches is even elected democratically! The senate isn't.
Oricinally they weren't even elected, but even though they now are,
California with 30 million people have the same representation as
Alaska with under a million. But if you want to believe it is a
democracy, fine! Let the senate vote and the majority rule, ok?
Happy? What's democratic about the minority getting it's way on
anything?
If the minority dares go to the extreme to block legislation or an appointment
with a filibuster (which is used rarely!), then there is probably very good
cause for it.
Political pandering. Virtually never anything more.
This may not always be the case (a good cause), but you have to respect
the role of the filibuster as the last resort to block legislation or an
appointee that the minority feels would be a detriment to our government and
society!
I do not respect the role of any such nonsense.
It's not about judges anymore when you talk of banning filibusters, it's about
gnawing away at the checks and balances that are central to a working
Democracy.
I don't want a "working" or any other kind of democracy. I want a
constitutional republic. Congressmen should respect and answer to the
US Constitution, not one ormore whiners who want to waste everyone's
time with jibberish because they can't win a vote.
William R. James
.
|
|
|
| User: "*碔3I3反`*" |
|
| Title: Re: AP: 78 percent say Senate shouldn't be Bush's rubberstamp |
27 May 2005 02:54:15 AM |
|
|
Duogthon 25 May 2005 22:00:02 -0500, Reaxloh Wm James
<wrjames.remove@spamreaper.org> guzazelrugham:
On Tue, 24 May 2005 16:27:17 -0500, *碔3I3反`*
<tweettweet@mooo.baaa.bleeat.com> wrote:
Duogthon 21 May 2005 22:42:04 -0500, Reaxloh Wm James
<wrjames.remove@spamreaper.org> guzazelrugham:
On Fri, 20 May 2005 15:14:58 -0500, fuller <fuller@ceoce.net> wrote:
May 20, 2005
Poll: Senate Should Examine Federal Judges
Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- More than three-quarters of Americans say the Senate
should aggressively examine federal judicial nominees and not just
approve them because they are the president's choices.
I agree with that! They should agressively examine federal judicial
nominees and then vote to accept of reject them.
["just vote" said 2 more times snipped] - William R. James
But not filibuster? u never said it, but that's what your saying?
If not, sorry.
That's what I am saying, yes. I see absolutely no logic to letting
one or more nutjobs stand there and talk about his underwear or any
other nonsense to waste time until everyone just decides to go on to
other business. It's silly.
yes, it's rather silly ... good enough for Cary Grant!
What's missing here is - What is a filibuster's role?
It's only role is to let those elected avoud the responsibility of
doing their job and voting. It has no legitimate purpose, it never
did.
A filibuster is basically the last "check & balance" that a minority party, or
the losing side in a legislation battle has to block it.
Nonsense! The US Constitution is the law, the other two brances of
government are the checks and balances. Political parties have no
special position in the constitution. I don't can't what clubs or
orgs the elected official choosed to belong to, what difference does
it make? We don't elect parties! But even if we did, the minority
LOST, that's why they are minority!
filibuster can be used by losing side (not synonymous with parties, sometimes
anyway (I know it often is) ; ).
There are checks and balances everywhere: congressional oversite
committee's etc ... without oversight between different dept's there would be
no check on those departments that they are doing their job, and doing it
correctly. Gov is supposed to be answerable ultimately to the people (we don't
vote them in if they suck).
I am well aware of this government not working well, as (below) it's
hardly even a Democracy .... but, no matter your politics, in a Democracy
checks and balances are essential.
It is used rarely, and only when the minority feels *strongly* enough about the
legislation/appointee to stick their neck out to stop it!
Stick their neck out? ROTFLMAO! Be serious! They are whining and it
doesn't risk anything but their time and not even that in reality.
The political whores in both parties have rigged it to becomea
pseudo-filibuster so they can do it without actually having to stand
there and whine for 30 hours at a time.
lol ... no argument there : )
I remind u, even if you disagree with the reason for the block (on the majority
side), checks and balances are always needed in a Democracy, the more the
merrier. Every time you even think about destroying a check and balance you are
destroying the quality of our Democracy; It gives corruption and powerful
influences the chance, a foothold, to control our Government. Without it a
ruling party controlling all bodies could ramrod anything down the throats of
the rest (sound familiar?).
We don't live in a democracy, and I wouldn't want to live in a
democracy. We have a constitutional republic. The Constitution is the
law and is not subjject to majority rule. Only half on one of the
three branches is even elected democratically! The senate isn't.
Oricinally they weren't even elected, but even though they now are,
California with 30 million people have the same representation as
Alaska with under a million. But if you want to believe it is a
democracy, fine! Let the senate vote and the majority rule, ok?
Happy? What's democratic about the minority getting it's way on
anything?
Checks and balance - duh! ---
ok ... not arguing with your politics, which I agree with for the most part ...
Pretend this *is* a democracy, and you want it to work. The point that majority
rules does not mean they can have everything they want, it has never meant that
(that's akin to fascism).
There are checks and balances that insure all voices will be heard, and
quite often compromise is the key word, because we have those checks and
balances.
We have been smart, or extremely lucky, but usually when there is a
Democratic Pres, we have a republican congress etc. Or vice-versa ... this
keeps things from getting out of hand, a check on spending and priorities.
In a diversified population this is what it takes to keep most of the people
happy. Things evolve slowly, but with great prudence (forget all the many
problems with it for now).
Now ... what if one party gets ahold of the presidency and both other
houses - yikes (sound familiar?) ... well, yes majority rule ... it happens.
But, that could get out of hand, quickly! They could start ramming through any,
Any! legislation they want ... no checks and balances.
For the most part, yes majority rules; but when it gets out of hand, and
something the minority feels strongly is to the detriment to government or the
people, they can stop it.
K?
With the whiney pants megalomaniac we have in office now - I'm glad there is
that last resort! -- understand?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1492436,00.html
This article did a good job describing how the filibuster resolution/and the
soon following defeat in congress (over stem-cells) put a huge check on Bush.
Not a Bush friendly writer from the sounds of it, but still a good read.
If the minority dares go to the extreme to block legislation or an appointment
with a filibuster (which is used rarely!), then there is probably very good
cause for it.
Political pandering. Virtually never anything more.
maybe so ... these judges that have been in the news sound extreme; they were
rejected once, and then they have the nerve to try and ram them through the 2nd
time. Right wing - pro business (you'd probably like that ; ) and/or right wing
christian (I hope your as concerned about that as I).
This may not always be the case (a good cause), but you have to respect
the role of the filibuster as the last resort to block legislation or an
appointee that the minority feels would be a detriment to our government and
society!
I do not respect the role of any such nonsense.
lol ... neener neener,
It's not about judges anymore when you talk of banning filibusters, it's about
gnawing away at the checks and balances that are central to a working
Democracy.
I don't want a "working" or any other kind of democracy. I want a
constitutional republic. Congressmen should respect and answer to the
US Constitution, not one ormore whiners who want to waste everyone's
time with jibberish because they can't win a vote.
William R. James
a minority (especially in this incredibly divided/vote on party line congress)
may never win a vote in 8 years - if not for some checks and balances in the
system - and thank god a few people who think for themselves.
Do you have political parties in this constitutional republic of yours? IMWTK
--
--------- |3ill|3 -----------
"Ye shall know the Truth, And the Truth shall make you angry!" -Aldous Huxley
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wm James" |
|
| Title: Re: AP: 78 percent say Senate shouldn't be Bush's rubberstamp |
27 May 2005 08:28:04 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 27 May 2005 02:54:15 -0500, *碔3I3反`*
<tweettweet@mooo.baaa.bleeat.com> wrote:
Duogthon 25 May 2005 22:00:02 -0500, Reaxloh Wm James
<wrjames.remove@spamreaper.org> guzazelrugham:
On Tue, 24 May 2005 16:27:17 -0500, *碔3I3反`*
<tweettweet@mooo.baaa.bleeat.com> wrote:
Duogthon 21 May 2005 22:42:04 -0500, Reaxloh Wm James
<wrjames.remove@spamreaper.org> guzazelrugham:
On Fri, 20 May 2005 15:14:58 -0500, fuller <fuller@ceoce.net> wrote:
May 20, 2005
Poll: Senate Should Examine Federal Judges
Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- More than three-quarters of Americans say the Senate
should aggressively examine federal judicial nominees and not just
approve them because they are the president's choices.
I agree with that! They should agressively examine federal judicial
nominees and then vote to accept of reject them.
["just vote" said 2 more times snipped] - William R. James
But not filibuster? u never said it, but that's what your saying?
If not, sorry.
That's what I am saying, yes. I see absolutely no logic to letting
one or more nutjobs stand there and talk about his underwear or any
other nonsense to waste time until everyone just decides to go on to
other business. It's silly.
yes, it's rather silly ... good enough for Cary Grant!
You mean Jimmy Stewart?
I've seen lots of things which looked great in movies but which I
wouldn't want to see done in reality. The T-Rex eating the lawyer in
Jurrassic Park was ... well... ok, bad example, I really would like to
see that. :)
What's missing here is - What is a filibuster's role?
It's only role is to let those elected avoud the responsibility of
doing their job and voting. It has no legitimate purpose, it never
did.
A filibuster is basically the last "check & balance" that a minority party, or
the losing side in a legislation battle has to block it.
Nonsense! The US Constitution is the law, the other two brances of
government are the checks and balances. Political parties have no
special position in the constitution. I don't can't what clubs or
orgs the elected official choosed to belong to, what difference does
it make? We don't elect parties! But even if we did, the minority
LOST, that's why they are minority!
filibuster can be used by losing side (not synonymous with parties, sometimes
anyway (I know it often is) ; ).
It is only because the two parties have set it up that way. Those
involved are acting on behalf of their parties, not on behalf of the
people or the constitution they are sworn to defend.
There are checks and balances everywhere: congressional oversite
committee's etc ... without oversight between different dept's there would be
no check on those departments that they are doing their job, and doing it
correctly. Gov is supposed to be answerable ultimately to the people (we don't
vote them in if they suck).
I am well aware of this government not working well, as (below) it's
hardly even a Democracy .... but, no matter your politics, in a Democracy
checks and balances are essential.
The constitution provides the checks and balances. The senate cannot
act on most things without the approval of the house and vise versa.
And both can't act without the approval of the executive unless they
can override a veto. And all three together can be rendered entirely
irrelevant by the courts.
It is used rarely, and only when the minority feels *strongly* enough about the
legislation/appointee to stick their neck out to stop it!
Stick their neck out? ROTFLMAO! Be serious! They are whining and it
doesn't risk anything but their time and not even that in reality.
The political whores in both parties have rigged it to becomea
pseudo-filibuster so they can do it without actually having to stand
there and whine for 30 hours at a time.
lol ... no argument there : )
I remind u, even if you disagree with the reason for the block (on the majority
side), checks and balances are always needed in a Democracy, the more the
merrier. Every time you even think about destroying a check and balance you are
destroying the quality of our Democracy; It gives corruption and powerful
influences the chance, a foothold, to control our Government. Without it a
ruling party controlling all bodies could ramrod anything down the throats of
the rest (sound familiar?).
We don't live in a democracy, and I wouldn't want to live in a
democracy. We have a constitutional republic. The Constitution is the
law and is not subjject to majority rule. Only half on one of the
three branches is even elected democratically! The senate isn't.
Oricinally they weren't even elected, but even though they now are,
California with 30 million people have the same representation as
Alaska with under a million. But if you want to believe it is a
democracy, fine! Let the senate vote and the majority rule, ok?
Happy? What's democratic about the minority getting it's way on
anything?
Checks and balance - duh! ---
The constitution provides that. The filibuster has nothing to do with
it.
ok ... not arguing with your politics, which I agree with for the most part ...
Pretend this *is* a democracy, and you want it to work. The point that majority
rules does not mean they can have everything they want, it has never meant that
(that's akin to fascism).
There are checks and balances that insure all voices will be heard, and
quite often compromise is the key word, because we have those checks and
balances.
The constitution provides that. The filibuster has nothing to do with
it.
We have been smart, or extremely lucky, but usually when there is a
Democratic Pres, we have a republican congress etc. Or vice-versa ... this
keeps things from getting out of hand, a check on spending and priorities.
In a diversified population this is what it takes to keep most of the people
happy. Things evolve slowly, but with great prudence (forget all the many
problems with it for now).
If the senate wasn't to spend too much they can't do it without the
house and the executive.
Now ... what if one party gets ahold of the presidency and both other
houses - yikes (sound familiar?) ... well, yes majority rule ... it happens.
But, that could get out of hand, quickly! They could start ramming through any,
Any! legislation they want ... no checks and balances.
Starting in 1932, that's precisely what happened.
For the most part, yes majority rules; but when it gets out of hand, and
something the minority feels strongly is to the detriment to government or the
people, they can stop it.
K?
That's what happened in the 1930s, and the democrats had full control
of the house and the senate through many democratic administreations
for over half a century. And yes, they went WAY overboard, abuse
their power, enacted a multitude of anticonstitutional program and
laws, and appointed leftist activist judges with no respect for the
constitution to keep those programs in place.
With the whiney pants megalomaniac we have in office now - I'm glad there is
that last resort! -- understand?
As opposed to the last whiney pants megalomaniac, and the ones before
him?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1492436,00.html
This article did a good job describing how the filibuster resolution/and the
soon following defeat in congress (over stem-cells) put a huge check on Bush.
Not a Bush friendly writer from the sounds of it, but still a good read.
It's a ranting crock! Insane blabering from the first sentence.
Consider the source.
If the minority dares go to the extreme to block legislation or an appointment
with a filibuster (which is used rarely!), then there is probably very good
cause for it.
Political pandering. Virtually never anything more.
maybe so ... these judges that have been in the news sound extreme; they were
rejected once, and then they have the nerve to try and ram them through the 2nd
time. Right wing - pro business (you'd probably like that ; ) and/or right wing
christian (I hope your as concerned about that as I).
I am, but I'd far prefer judges who worship supernatural creatures
than judges who worship government and or themselves like we've had
for so long. They only "sound extreme" because leftist kooks ranting
constanly with an eager leftist media parroting them keep claiming it.
And who are those who claim these judges are "out of the main stream"?
Ted Kennedy? Nancy Pelosi? Reid? Kerry? These kooks are supposed be
part of the main stream?
This may not always be the case (a good cause), but you have to respect
the role of the filibuster as the last resort to block legislation or an
appointee that the minority feels would be a detriment to our government and
society!
I do not respect the role of any such nonsense.
lol ... neener neener,
It's not about judges anymore when you talk of banning filibusters, it's about
gnawing away at the checks and balances that are central to a working
Democracy.
I don't want a "working" or any other kind of democracy. I want a
constitutional republic. Congressmen should respect and answer to the
US Constitution, not one ormore whiners who want to waste everyone's
time with jibberish because they can't win a vote.
William R. James
a minority (especially in this incredibly divided/vote on party line congress)
may never win a vote in 8 years - if not for some checks and balances in the
system - and thank god a few people who think for themselves.
The problem isn't about checks and balances, it's the party control of
the congress. What we need is a constitutional amendment setting some
procedual rules which would take parties out of power. For example,
the comitteee seats are entirely party positions. When Jeffords
jumped, the circus made it blatently obvious. One party take the
majority and the seats are reassigned. Ok, fine. But then barly a few
months later in the middle of the term, one guy desides to quit a
private club which shouldn't have any power at all, and suddenly all
the seats are swapped again like a federal game of musical chairs.
Does anyone think that's not silly? What if a week later another one
jumped and then anther, then another, back and forth for the next two
years? It would be a joke! Another thing was party addressed by the
republicans in 1995 when they gave a democrat president the line item
veto. A constitutional ban on riders would fix MANY problems. First,
the congress critters couldn't trade votes in the same bill. We could
eiminate massive waste in one stroke. Secondly, they would be held
responsible for their votes on specific issues. Perhaps more
importantly, they would have to work long hours to do much damage,
they couldn't pass a thousand things at one time without even having
read most of it.
Do you have political parties in this constitutional republic of yours? IMWTK
Unfortunately.
William R. James
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: AP: 78 percent say Senate shouldn't be Bush's rubberstamp |
20 May 2005 04:30:44 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 20 May 2005 15:14:58 -0500, fuller <fuller@ceoce.net> wrote:
WASHINGTON -- More than three-quarters of Americans say the Senate
should aggressively examine federal judicial nominees and not just
approve them because they are the president's choices.
so why won't your 'rat buddies allow the vote? It's an easy answer. They will
illustrate just how big a bunch of obstructionists they really are. A
filibuster hides that little problem for the 'rats.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: AP: 78 percent say Senate shouldn't be Bush's rubberstamp |
20 May 2005 05:39:39 PM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:5lls81df3hcbugvir7q0a3otssg1lrsh9q@4ax.com...
On Fri, 20 May 2005 15:14:58 -0500, fuller <fuller@ceoce.net> wrote:
WASHINGTON -- More than three-quarters of Americans say the Senate
should aggressively examine federal judicial nominees and not just
approve them because they are the president's choices.
so why won't your 'rat buddies allow the vote? It's an easy answer. They
will
illustrate just how big a bunch of obstructionists they really are. A
filibuster hides that little problem for the 'rats.
Obstructionists? What percentage of the nominations have gone through? 95%?
You don't know what the word obstructionist means, you retarded git.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: AP: 78 percent say Senate shouldn't be Bush's rubberstamp |
20 May 2005 07:21:42 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:K56dnfSnFJC4-hPfRVn-hA@io.com...
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:5lls81df3hcbugvir7q0a3otssg1lrsh9q@4ax.com...
On Fri, 20 May 2005 15:14:58 -0500, fuller <fuller@ceoce.net> wrote:
WASHINGTON -- More than three-quarters of Americans say the Senate
should aggressively examine federal judicial nominees and not just
approve them because they are the president's choices.
so why won't your 'rat buddies allow the vote? It's an easy answer.
They
will
illustrate just how big a bunch of obstructionists they really are. A
filibuster hides that little problem for the 'rats.
Obstructionists? What percentage of the nominations have gone through?
95%?
You don't know what the word obstructionist means, you retarded git.
Particularly when the Republicans were far more obstructionist when it came
to Clinton's nominees.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wm James" |
|
| Title: Re: AP: 78 percent say Senate shouldn't be Bush's rubberstamp |
21 May 2005 10:42:06 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 21 May 2005 08:21:42 +0800, "Peacenik"
<cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:K56dnfSnFJC4-hPfRVn-hA@io.com...
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:5lls81df3hcbugvir7q0a3otssg1lrsh9q@4ax.com...
On Fri, 20 May 2005 15:14:58 -0500, fuller <fuller@ceoce.net> wrote:
WASHINGTON -- More than three-quarters of Americans say the Senate
should aggressively examine federal judicial nominees and not just
approve them because they are the president's choices.
so why won't your 'rat buddies allow the vote? It's an easy answer.
They
will
illustrate just how big a bunch of obstructionists they really are. A
filibuster hides that little problem for the 'rats.
Obstructionists? What percentage of the nominations have gone through?
95%?
You don't know what the word obstructionist means, you retarded git.
Particularly when the Republicans were far more obstructionist when it came
to Clinton's nominees.
They voted no.
William R. JAmes
.
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: AP: 78 percent say Senate shouldn't be Bush's rubberstamp |
24 May 2005 12:50:20 AM |
|
|
Wm James wrote:
On Sat, 21 May 2005 08:21:42 +0800, "Peacenik"
<cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:K56dnfSnFJC4-hPfRVn-hA@io.com...
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:5lls81df3hcbugvir7q0a3otssg1lrsh9q@4ax.com...
On Fri, 20 May 2005 15:14:58 -0500, fuller <fuller@ceoce.net> wrote:
WASHINGTON -- More than three-quarters of Americans say the Senate
should aggressively examine federal judicial nominees and not just
approve them because they are the president's choices.
so why won't your 'rat buddies allow the vote? It's an easy answer.
They
will
illustrate just how big a bunch of obstructionists they really are. A
filibuster hides that little problem for the 'rats.
Obstructionists? What percentage of the nominations have gone through?
95%?
You don't know what the word obstructionist means, you retarded git.
Particularly when the Republicans were far more obstructionist when it came
to Clinton's nominees.
They voted no.
William R. JAmes
Orrin Hatch managed to keep 66 of Clintons appointees from ever getting
a vote.
--
Jack
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wm James" |
|
| Title: Re: AP: 78 percent say Senate shouldn't be Bush's rubberstamp |
25 May 2005 09:42:02 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 23 May 2005 23:50:20 -0600, nJb <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
Wm James wrote:
On Sat, 21 May 2005 08:21:42 +0800, "Peacenik"
<cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:K56dnfSnFJC4-hPfRVn-hA@io.com...
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:5lls81df3hcbugvir7q0a3otssg1lrsh9q@4ax.com...
On Fri, 20 May 2005 15:14:58 -0500, fuller <fuller@ceoce.net> wrote:
WASHINGTON -- More than three-quarters of Americans say the Senate
should aggressively examine federal judicial nominees and not just
approve them because they are the president's choices.
so why won't your 'rat buddies allow the vote? It's an easy answer.
They
will
illustrate just how big a bunch of obstructionists they really are. A
filibuster hides that little problem for the 'rats.
Obstructionists? What percentage of the nominations have gone through?
95%?
You don't know what the word obstructionist means, you retarded git.
Particularly when the Republicans were far more obstructionist when it came
to Clinton's nominees.
They voted no.
William R. JAmes
Orrin Hatch managed to keep 66 of Clintons appointees from ever getting
a vote.
The committe voted no. And no, I'm not defending that either. I think
the senate should vote on all appointments. But nobody was
threatening to waste everybody's time with endless pointless ramblings
to keep the senate from voting. The filibuster is silly nonsense, it
always has been. What kind of insane kooks thought it was useful to
allow such nonsense in the first place? All it's good for is letting
congressmen avoid taking responsibility.
William R. James
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: AP: 78 percent say Senate shouldn't be Bush's rubberstamp |
21 May 2005 11:04:33 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 21 May 2005 08:21:42 +0800, "Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:K56dnfSnFJC4-hPfRVn-hA@io.com...
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:5lls81df3hcbugvir7q0a3otssg1lrsh9q@4ax.com...
On Fri, 20 May 2005 15:14:58 -0500, fuller <fuller@ceoce.net> wrote:
WASHINGTON -- More than three-quarters of Americans say the Senate
should aggressively examine federal judicial nominees and not just
approve them because they are the president's choices.
so why won't your 'rat buddies allow the vote? It's an easy answer.
They
will
illustrate just how big a bunch of obstructionists they really are. A
filibuster hides that little problem for the 'rats.
Obstructionists? What percentage of the nominations have gone through?
95%?
You don't know what the word obstructionist means, you retarded git.
Particularly when the Republicans were far more obstructionist when it came
to Clinton's nominees.
But they voted. They didn't filibuster to block so much as a vote.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: AP: 78 percent say Senate shouldn't be Bush's rubberstamp |
21 May 2005 11:59:04 AM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:4vmu811ogkfh9k7ic64oh5cmk5059sj2pp@4ax.com...
On Sat, 21 May 2005 08:21:42 +0800, "Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:K56dnfSnFJC4-hPfRVn-hA@io.com...
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:5lls81df3hcbugvir7q0a3otssg1lrsh9q@4ax.com...
On Fri, 20 May 2005 15:14:58 -0500, fuller <fuller@ceoce.net> wrote:
WASHINGTON -- More than three-quarters of Americans say the Senate
should aggressively examine federal judicial nominees and not just
approve them because they are the president's choices.
so why won't your 'rat buddies allow the vote? It's an easy answer.
They
will
illustrate just how big a bunch of obstructionists they really are. A
filibuster hides that little problem for the 'rats.
Obstructionists? What percentage of the nominations have gone through?
95%?
You don't know what the word obstructionist means, you retarded git.
Particularly when the Republicans were far more obstructionist when it
came
to Clinton's nominees.
But they voted. They didn't filibuster to block so much as a vote.
But of course the republicans had no problem filibustering in the 60s did
they?
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: AP: 78 percent say Senate shouldn't be Bush's rubberstamp |
21 May 2005 01:51:39 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 21 May 2005 11:59:04 -0500, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote:
But of course the republicans had no problem filibustering in the 60s did
they?
It was the southern 'rats that filibustered in the 60's, over segregation.
Eventually you'll grow up enough to understand. Eventually you'll have to
accept that is you and yours that are the problem.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank J Warner" |
|
| Title: Re: AP: 78 percent say Senate shouldn't be Bush's rubberstamp |
23 May 2005 03:47:29 PM |
|
|
In article <4vmu811ogkfh9k7ic64oh5cmk5059sj2pp@4ax.com>, duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Sat, 21 May 2005 08:21:42 +0800, "Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:K56dnfSnFJC4-hPfRVn-hA@io.com...
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:5lls81df3hcbugvir7q0a3otssg1lrsh9q@4ax.com...
On Fri, 20 May 2005 15:14:58 -0500, fuller <fuller@ceoce.net> wrote:
WASHINGTON -- More than three-quarters of Americans say the Senate
should aggressively examine federal judicial nominees and not just
approve them because they are the president's choices.
so why won't your 'rat buddies allow the vote? It's an easy answer.
They
will
illustrate just how big a bunch of obstructionists they really are. A
filibuster hides that little problem for the 'rats.
Obstructionists? What percentage of the nominations have gone through?
95%?
You don't know what the word obstructionist means, you retarded git.
Particularly when the Republicans were far more obstructionist when it came
to Clinton's nominees.
But they voted. They didn't filibuster to block so much as a vote.
They voted only if the nomination got out of committee. It was
Judiciary Committee chair Orrin Hatch who tied up more than 60 of
Clinton's nominations in committee by instituting the "blue slip"
system, which decreed that any nominee could be put on hold if either
senator from the nominee's home state, generally Republican, filed an
objection.
Later, when Mr. Bush came to office, Hatch changed the rules to require
*two* "blue slips," so that *both* senators from a nominee's home state
had to object in order to successfully block the vote. Guess how many
times that happened.
History is a *****, isn't it, Earl?
-Frank
--
fwarner1-at-franksknives-dot-com
Here's some of my work:
http://www.franksknives.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: AP: 78 percent say Senate shouldn't be Bush's rubberstamp |
23 May 2005 05:42:41 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 23 May 2005 13:47:29 -0700, Frank J Warner
<warnerf@veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net> wrote:
But they voted. They didn't filibuster to block so much as a vote.
They voted only if the nomination got out of committee. It was
Judiciary Committee chair Orrin Hatch who tied up more than 60 of
Clinton's nominations in committee by instituting the "blue slip"
system, which decreed that any nominee could be put on hold if either
senator from the nominee's home state, generally Republican, filed an
objection.
Later, when Mr. Bush came to office, Hatch changed the rules to require
*two* "blue slips," so that *both* senators from a nominee's home state
had to object in order to successfully block the vote. Guess how many
times that happened.
History is a *****, isn't it, Earl?
Yes, but not because of what you said. I think it's wrong to block the right to
vote either way from either side.
AND, you're never heard me say otherwise.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: AP: 78 percent say Senate shouldn't be Bush's rubberstamp |
23 May 2005 08:46:44 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Sat, 21 May 2005 08:21:42 +0800, "Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:K56dnfSnFJC4-hPfRVn-hA@io.com...
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:5lls81df3hcbugvir7q0a3otssg1lrsh9q@4ax.com...
On Fri, 20 May 2005 15:14:58 -0500, fuller <fuller@ceoce.net> wrote:
WASHINGTON -- More than three-quarters of Americans say the Senate
should aggressively examine federal judicial nominees and not just
approve them because they are the president's choices.
so why won't your 'rat buddies allow the vote? It's an easy answer.
They
will
illustrate just how big a bunch of obstructionists they really are. A
filibuster hides that little problem for the 'rats.
Obstructionists? What percentage of the nominations have gone through?
95%?
You don't know what the word obstructionist means, you retarded git.
Particularly when the Republicans were far more obstructionist when it came
to Clinton's nominees.
But they voted. They didn't filibuster to block so much as a vote.
They didn't vote on 66 of Clintons nominees. They never got out of Orrin
Hatch's committee. You moron, try watching the news sometime instead of
masturbating with a crucifix up your *****.
--
Jack
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: AP: 78 percent say Senate shouldn't be Bush's rubberstamp |
24 May 2005 05:01:43 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 23 May 2005 19:46:44 -0600, nJb <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
But they voted. They didn't filibuster to block so much as a vote.
They didn't vote on 66 of Clintons nominees. They never got out of Orrin
Hatch's committee. You moron, try watching the news sometime instead of
masturbating with a crucifix up your *****.
What happened in Hatch's committee?
Was it filibuster or vote?
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: AP: 78 percent say Senate shouldn't be Bush's rubberstamp |
24 May 2005 12:35:20 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Mon, 23 May 2005 19:46:44 -0600, nJb <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
But they voted. They didn't filibuster to block so much as a vote.
They didn't vote on 66 of Clintons nominees. They never got out of Orrin
Hatch's committee. You moron, try watching the news sometime instead of
masturbating with a crucifix up your *****.
What happened in Hatch's committee?
Was it filibuster or vote?
Neither. It was obstruction.
--
Jack
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: AP: 78 percent say Senate shouldn't be Bush's rubberstamp |
24 May 2005 05:40:29 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 24 May 2005 11:35:20 -0600, nJb <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
What happened in Hatch's committee?
Was it filibuster or vote?
Neither. It was obstruction.
That's what I thought. You don't know.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: AP: 78 percent say Senate shouldn't be Bush's rubberstamp |
24 May 2005 05:59:00 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2005 11:35:20 -0600, nJb <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
What happened in Hatch's committee?
Was it filibuster or vote?
Neither. It was obstruction.
That's what I thought. You don't know.
You've never had a thought in your life.
--
Jack
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: AP: 78 percent say Senate shouldn't be Bush's rubberstamp |
24 May 2005 05:44:10 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2005 11:35:20 -0600, nJb <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
What happened in Hatch's committee?
Was it filibuster or vote?
Neither. It was obstruction.
That's what I thought. You don't know.
So, duke, why don't you tell us? Or do you not want to help us? And,
if that's the case, then why are you here?
.
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: AP: 78 percent say Senate shouldn't be Bush's rubberstamp |
24 May 2005 06:03:33 PM |
|
|
DanielSan wrote:
duke wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2005 11:35:20 -0600, nJb <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
What happened in Hatch's committee?
Was it filibuster or vote?
Neither. It was obstruction.
That's what I thought. You don't know.
So, duke, why don't you tell us? Or do you not want to help us? And,
if that's the case, then why are you here?
He hasn't a clue how Hatch kept them from being voted on. All he knows
is Hatch=repugnant=good.
--
Jack
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Bramscher" |
|
| Title: Re: AP: 78 percent say Senate shouldn't be Bush's rubberstamp |
23 May 2005 11:13:42 PM |
|
|
Peacenik wrote:
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:K56dnfSnFJC4-hPfRVn-hA@io.com...
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:5lls81df3hcbugvir7q0a3otssg1lrsh9q@4ax.com...
On Fri, 20 May 2005 15:14:58 -0500, fuller <fuller@ceoce.net> wrote:
WASHINGTON -- More than three-quarters of Americans say the Senate
should aggressively examine federal judicial nominees and not just
approve them because they are the president's choices.
so why won't your 'rat buddies allow the vote? It's an easy answer.
They
will
illustrate just how big a bunch of obstructionists they really are. A
filibuster hides that little problem for the 'rats.
Obstructionists? What percentage of the nominations have gone through?
95%?
You don't know what the word obstructionist means, you retarded git.
Particularly when the Republicans were far more obstructionist when it came
to Clinton's nominees.
And the sad part is that Clinton himself was a centrist: allowed the
School of Americas to continue business as usual, presented an
industry-friendly health care plan, his friend Joe Trapasso got weapons
grade tritium to be manufactured at civilian nuclear plants in TVA
reactors, Clinton handed away countless acres of Old Growth, etc.
For example, the Labor Party in Britain is a pro-war and pro-Bush
government. "Liberal" is to the right of Labor. Where exactly is the
progressive (left of Labor) representation in the US?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: AP: 78 percent say Senate shouldn't be Bush's rubberstamp |
21 May 2005 07:34:26 AM |
|
|
Peacenik wrote:
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:K56dnfSnFJC4-hPfRVn-hA@io.com...
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:5lls81df3hcbugvir7q0a3otssg1lrsh9q@4ax.com...
On Fri, 20 May 2005 15:14:58 -0500, fuller <fuller@ceoce.net>
wrote:
WASHINGTON -- More than three-quarters of Americans say the
Senate
should aggressively examine federal judicial nominees and not
just
approve them because they are the president's choices.
so why won't your 'rat buddies allow the vote? It's an easy
answer.
They
will
illustrate just how big a bunch of obstructionists they really
are. A
filibuster hides that little problem for the 'rats.
Obstructionists? What percentage of the nominations have gone
through?
95%?
You don't know what the word obstructionist means, you retarded
git.
Particularly when the Republicans were far more obstructionist when
it came
to Clinton's nominees.
It's pathetic that Republicans are willing to sacrifice a centuries-old
American tradition just to prove their abject loyalty to a dictator.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John" |
|
| Title: Re: AP: 78 percent say Senate shouldn't be Bush's rubberstamp |
21 May 2005 08:46:34 AM |
|
|
<sanant0n@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1116678866.083088.298450@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Peacenik wrote:
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:K56dnfSnFJC4-hPfRVn-hA@io.com...
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:5lls81df3hcbugvir7q0a3otssg1lrsh9q@4ax.com...
On Fri, 20 May 2005 15:14:58 -0500, fuller <fuller@ceoce.net>
wrote:
WASHINGTON -- More than three-quarters of Americans say the
Senate
should aggressively examine federal judicial nominees and not
just
approve them because they are the president's choices.
so why won't your 'rat buddies allow the vote? It's an easy
answer.
They
will
illustrate just how big a bunch of obstructionists they really
are. A
filibuster hides that little problem for the 'rats.
Obstructionists? What percentage of the nominations have gone
through?
95%?
You don't know what the word obstructionist means, you retarded
git.
Particularly when the Republicans were far more obstructionist when
it came
to Clinton's nominees.
It's pathetic that Republicans are willing to sacrifice a centuries-old
American tradition just to prove their abject loyalty to a dictator.
Why so? The democrats are certainly willing - primarily just to serve their
own blood lust for Bush.
Howard Dean claims that the democrats are in a no lose situation
politically - "so long as they do not compromise." So... Dean is likely to
get his way on the trigger getting pulled. It's just a political calculation
to him, which means democrats do not really give a crap about Senate
tradition. Apparently most repubs don't either because once it's done there
won't be any going back to the old rule.
John
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: AP: 78 percent say Senate shouldn't be Bush's rubberstamp |
21 May 2005 11:03:37 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 20 May 2005 17:39:39 -0500, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote:
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:5lls81df3hcbugvir7q0a3otssg1lrsh9q@4ax.com...
On Fri, 20 May 2005 15:14:58 -0500, fuller <fuller@ceoce.net> wrote:
WASHINGTON -- More than three-quarters of Americans say the Senate
should aggressively examine federal judicial nominees and not just
approve them because they are the president's choices.
so why won't your 'rat buddies allow the vote? It's an easy answer. They
will
illustrate just how big a bunch of obstructionists they really are. A
filibuster hides that little problem for the 'rats.
Obstructionists? What percentage of the nominations have gone through? 95%?
Dump the 'rat filibusters and go for the vote. It's really not that hard to do.
You don't know what the word obstructionist means, you retarded git.
Yes, yes I do.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "towelie" |
|
| Title: Re: AP: 78 percent say Senate shouldn't be Bush's rubberstamp |
20 May 2005 04:42:20 PM |
|
|
TV's duke wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2005 15:14:58 -0500, fuller <fuller@ceoce.net> wrote:
WASHINGTON -- More than three-quarters of Americans say the Senate
should aggressively examine federal judicial nominees and not just
approve them because they are the president's choices.
so why won't your 'rat buddies allow the vote? It's an easy answer. They
will
illustrate just how big a bunch of obstructionists they really are. A
filibuster hides that little problem for the 'rats.
Because maybe they believe these nominees are bad for the country?
--
Beliefs are dangerous. Beliefs allow the mind to stop functioning.
A non-functioning mind is clinically dead. Believe in nothing.
- Maynard James Keenan
The belief in the Christian god... is an appalling nightmare. I reject
the notion that the whole universe was created by this kind of evil
creature who would create such a thing. - Anthony Flew, March 22, 2005
aa #2133
ap #19
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
