| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Yang, AthD h.c" |
| Date: |
16 Sep 2004 09:01:48 PM |
| Object: |
Bush Sr: AWOL Fucked Up Iraq |
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1999/03/a19990303bush.htm
"Had we gone into Baghdad -- we could have done it, you guys could
have done it, you could have been there in 48 hours -- and then what?
Which sergeant, which private, whose life would be at stake in perhaps
a fruitless hunt in an urban guerilla war to find the most-secure
dictator in the world? Whose life would be on my hands as the
commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond the
international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we're
going to show our macho? We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be
an occupying power -- America in an Arab land -- with no allies at our
side. It would have been disastrous."
Bush I, in a 1998 speech to Gulf War veterans
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -1028 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Why vote for Kerry or Bush? |
21 Sep 2004 09:09:11 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 10:03:58 GMT, Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:
On 21 Sep 2004 03:08:08 GMT, travelingtheworld@usa.com(waterfalllover)
in news message <20040920230808.433$T7_-_@newsreader.com> wrote:
Ok I want reasons to VOTE FOR either Bush or Kerry, not this crap that
Kerry is better then Bush, or vice versa- so those of you good folks please
post why I should vote for Kerry or Bush. Right now Im leaning towards Bush
as Kerry can't seem to stop changing his mind.
Iraq will only get worse. Vote for Bush so that he will take the
blame for what he started. When he withdraws troops from area and the
Shia Muslims form a theocracy, Iraq will be such a mess* that it will
ensure that the Democrats enjoy at least the next 16 years in the
White House with President Clinton serving her 8 years before
President Obama takes over.
But then, I'm a pragmatist and tend to think in the long-term.
* Not to mention the economy.
Sorry, Bush would install more of his slimeball supreme court
justices. That would screw this country up for the rest of their
lives.
Kerry doesn't flip flop. You've been taken in by the right wing
marketing. Bush flip flops - badly. First he says one thing, then he
does another, then he pretends that it was all for another reason.
You can't trust him on anything he says.
I can't believe any of these republican pretends that Kerry voted
first one way and then the other on bills. You can't have more than
one vote on the same bill. Something has to change first. How stupid
are they not to know that, don't they know how this country processes
it's bills?. Oh yeah, they are lying to you. They think you are
stupid.
Don't fall for it. You aren't as stupid as they think.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OH LUUUUUUUUUUUUCY RAMIREZ, JOO GOTTA LOTTA SPLAININ TO DOOOOOO!" |
|
| Title: Re: Why vote for Kerry or Bush? |
21 Sep 2004 09:17:24 AM |
|
|
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:41533432.138275921@news-west.newscene.com...
Sorry, Bush would install more of his slimeball
Yup.. I can see by the ugly Anti-American hate-speech that Kate the
Hippy-Pie-Wagon is rolling through town!
clippity-clop!
-Lucy Ramirez
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: Why vote for Kerry or Bush? |
21 Sep 2004 01:18:55 PM |
|
|
(Kate ) wrote in message news:<41533432.138275921@news-west.newscene.com>...
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 10:03:58 GMT, Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:
On 21 Sep 2004 03:08:08 GMT, travelingtheworld@usa.com(waterfalllover)
in news message <20040920230808.433$T7_-_@newsreader.com> wrote:
Ok I want reasons to VOTE FOR either Bush or Kerry, not this crap that
Kerry is better then Bush, or vice versa- so those of you good folks please
post why I should vote for Kerry or Bush. Right now Im leaning towards Bush
as Kerry can't seem to stop changing his mind.
Iraq will only get worse. Vote for Bush so that he will take the
blame for what he started. When he withdraws troops from area and the
Shia Muslims form a theocracy, Iraq will be such a mess* that it will
ensure that the Democrats enjoy at least the next 16 years in the
White House with President Clinton serving her 8 years before
President Obama takes over.
But then, I'm a pragmatist and tend to think in the long-term.
* Not to mention the economy.
Sorry, Bush would install more of his slimeball supreme court
justices. That would screw this country up for the rest of their
lives.
Kerry doesn't flip flop. You've been taken in by the right wing
marketing. Bush flip flops - badly. First he says one thing, then he
does another, then he pretends that it was all for another reason.
You can't trust him on anything he says.
I can't believe any of these republican pretends that Kerry voted
first one way and then the other on bills. You can't have more than
one vote on the same bill. Something has to change first. How stupid
are they not to know that, don't they know how this country processes
it's bills?. Oh yeah, they are lying to you. They think you are
stupid.
Don't fall for it. You aren't as stupid as they think.
Amazingly enough, I'm not even as stupid as you think.
Liz BAAWA #658
.
|
|
|
| User: "ester" |
|
| Title: Re: Why vote for Kerry or Bush? |
21 Sep 2004 04:21:09 PM |
|
|
Liz <mtstack@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:af375798.0409211018.70f7896f@posting.google.com...
cobalt@newscene.com (Kate ) wrote in message
news:<41533432.138275921@news-west.newscene.com>...
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 10:03:58 GMT, Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:
On 21 Sep 2004 03:08:08 GMT, travelingtheworld@usa.com(waterfalllover)
in news message <20040920230808.433$T7_-_@newsreader.com> wrote:
Ok I want reasons to VOTE FOR either Bush or Kerry, not this crap that
Kerry is better then Bush, or vice versa- so those of you good folks
please
post why I should vote for Kerry or Bush. Right now Im leaning towards
Bush
as Kerry can't seem to stop changing his mind.
Iraq will only get worse. Vote for Bush so that he will take the
blame for what he started. When he withdraws troops from area and the
Shia Muslims form a theocracy, Iraq will be such a mess* that it will
ensure that the Democrats enjoy at least the next 16 years in the
White House with President Clinton serving her 8 years before
President Obama takes over.
But then, I'm a pragmatist and tend to think in the long-term.
* Not to mention the economy.
Sorry, Bush would install more of his slimeball supreme court
justices.
riiiiiight. like the ones who got overwhelming approval from lawyer's
associations, peers, etc. yet were filibustered (a precedent) so an actual
vote was impossible.
purely based on ideology.
whit
That would screw this country up for the rest of their
lives.
Kerry doesn't flip flop. You've been taken in by the right wing
marketing. Bush flip flops - badly. First he says one thing, then he
does another, then he pretends that it was all for another reason.
You can't trust him on anything he says.
I can't believe any of these republican pretends that Kerry voted
first one way and then the other on bills. You can't have more than
one vote on the same bill. Something has to change first. How stupid
are they not to know that, don't they know how this country processes
it's bills?. Oh yeah, they are lying to you. They think you are
stupid.
Don't fall for it. You aren't as stupid as they think.
Amazingly enough, I'm not even as stupid as you think.
Liz BAAWA #658
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Mitchum" |
|
| Title: Re: Why vote for Kerry or Bush? |
21 Sep 2004 04:37:04 PM |
|
|
ester <ester@home.net> wrote:
Sorry, Bush would install more of his slimeball supreme court
justices.
riiiiiight. like the ones who got overwhelming approval from lawyer's
associations, peers, etc. yet were filibustered (a precedent) so an actual
vote was impossible.
purely based on ideology.
Exactly. A rare case of Democrats doing their job.
--
"I've been to war. I've raised twins. If I had a choice, I'd rather go
to war." - GWB, Houston Chronicle, January 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "ester" |
|
| Title: Re: Why vote for Kerry or Bush? |
21 Sep 2004 04:46:14 PM |
|
|
Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gkgwj0.10tdgdwfgnjppN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
ester <ester@home.net> wrote:
Sorry, Bush would install more of his slimeball supreme court
justices.
riiiiiight. like the ones who got overwhelming approval from lawyer's
associations, peers, etc. yet were filibustered (a precedent) so an
actual
vote was impossible.
purely based on ideology.
Exactly. A rare case of Democrats doing their job.
it's an odious precedent.
whit
--
"I've been to war. I've raised twins. If I had a choice, I'd rather go
to war." - GWB, Houston Chronicle, January 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Mitchum" |
|
| Title: Re: Why vote for Kerry or Bush? |
21 Sep 2004 04:56:02 PM |
|
|
ester <ester@home.net> wrote:
Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gkgwj0.10tdgdwfgnjppN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
ester <ester@home.net> wrote:
Sorry, Bush would install more of his slimeball supreme court
justices.
riiiiiight. like the ones who got overwhelming approval from lawyer's
associations, peers, etc. yet were filibustered (a precedent) so an
actual vote was impossible.
purely based on ideology.
Exactly. A rare case of Democrats doing their job.
it's an odious precedent.
These are odious times.
--
"I've been to war. I've raised twins. If I had a choice, I'd rather go
to war." - GWB, Houston Chronicle, January 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "ester" |
|
| Title: Re: Why vote for Kerry or Bush? |
21 Sep 2004 05:03:58 PM |
|
|
Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gkgxaq.1mj4ikx1pkw0cmN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
ester <ester@home.net> wrote:
Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gkgwj0.10tdgdwfgnjppN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
ester <ester@home.net> wrote:
Sorry, Bush would install more of his slimeball supreme court
justices.
riiiiiight. like the ones who got overwhelming approval from
lawyer's
associations, peers, etc. yet were filibustered (a precedent) so an
actual vote was impossible.
purely based on ideology.
Exactly. A rare case of Democrats doing their job.
it's an odious precedent.
These are odious times.
it simply shows that (for them in this case) tactics outweighed ethics.
wouldn't be the first for either party and won't be the last.
whit
--
"I've been to war. I've raised twins. If I had a choice, I'd rather go
to war." - GWB, Houston Chronicle, January 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Mitchum" |
|
| Title: Re: Why vote for Kerry or Bush? |
21 Sep 2004 05:25:01 PM |
|
|
ester <ester@home.net> wrote:
Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gkgxaq.1mj4ikx1pkw0cmN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
[..]
Sorry, Bush would install more of his slimeball supreme court
justices.
riiiiiight. like the ones who got overwhelming approval from
lawyer's associations, peers, etc. yet were filibustered (a
precedent) so an actual vote was impossible.
purely based on ideology.
Exactly. A rare case of Democrats doing their job.
it's an odious precedent.
These are odious times.
it simply shows that (for them in this case) tactics outweighed ethics.
What it says to me is that ethics outweighed tradition.
--
"I've been to war. I've raised twins. If I had a choice, I'd rather go
to war." - GWB, Houston Chronicle, January 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "ester" |
|
| Title: Re: Why vote for Kerry or Bush? |
21 Sep 2004 05:41:30 PM |
|
|
Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gkgykk.vf4yjzite2fmN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
ester <ester@home.net> wrote:
Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gkgxaq.1mj4ikx1pkw0cmN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
[..]
Sorry, Bush would install more of his slimeball supreme
court
justices.
riiiiiight. like the ones who got overwhelming approval from
lawyer's associations, peers, etc. yet were filibustered (a
precedent) so an actual vote was impossible.
purely based on ideology.
Exactly. A rare case of Democrats doing their job.
it's an odious precedent.
These are odious times.
it simply shows that (for them in this case) tactics outweighed ethics.
What it says to me is that ethics outweighed tradition.
you seriously think it's ethical to filibuster a judge BASED ON IDEOLOGY
regardless of the fact that the judge is qualified (see approvals noted
above).
and keep up the filibuster to deny the vote?
and if the situations were reversed (dem president nominating a judge)
and dem controlled (but not a supermajority) congress was filibustered and
denied the up/down vote of qualified judge based on ideology of the
republican minority?
that you'd think that was ETHICAL?
whatEver.
it's not ethical. it's machiavellian.
but if that's YOUR ethics, more power to you, prince.
whit
--
"I've been to war. I've raised twins. If I had a choice, I'd rather go
to war." - GWB, Houston Chronicle, January 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Mitchum" |
|
| Title: Re: Why vote for Kerry or Bush? |
21 Sep 2004 06:30:41 PM |
|
|
ester <ester@home.net> wrote:
you seriously think it's ethical to filibuster a judge BASED ON IDEOLOGY
Depends on the ideology.
That's why the process is in the constitution, you twit.
--
"I've been to war. I've raised twins. If I had a choice, I'd rather go
to war." - GWB, Houston Chronicle, January 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric da Red" |
|
| Title: Re: Why vote for Kerry or Bush? |
22 Sep 2004 01:51:00 PM |
|
|
In article <1gkh1oa.1drel554p0sh0N%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote:
ester <ester@home.net> wrote:
you seriously think it's ethical to filibuster a judge BASED ON IDEOLOGY
Depends on the ideology.
That's why the process is in the constitution, you twit.
The GOP Congress thought this was a fine tactic in the late 1990's.
--
Quote Of The Week: "We are here to affirm that when Americans stand up
and speak their minds and say America can do better, that is not a
challenge to patriotism; it is the heart and soul of patriotism."
-- John Kerry
.
|
|
|
| User: "ester" |
|
| Title: Re: Why vote for Kerry or Bush? |
22 Sep 2004 04:06:12 PM |
|
|
Eric da Red <bergamot@drizzle.com> wrote in message
news:cishik$845$1@drizzle.com...
In article <1gkh1oa.1drel554p0sh0N%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote:
ester <ester@home.net> wrote:
you seriously think it's ethical to filibuster a judge BASED ON
IDEOLOGY
Depends on the ideology.
That's why the process is in the constitution, you twit.
The GOP Congress thought this was a fine tactic in the late 1990's.
Please list a judge that the GOP congress filibustered based on ideology and
prevented an up/down vote here:
whit
--
Quote Of The Week: "We are here to affirm that when Americans stand up
and speak their minds and say America can do better, that is not a
challenge to patriotism; it is the heart and soul of patriotism."
-- John Kerry
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why vote for Kerry or Bush? |
22 Sep 2004 04:24:04 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 18:51:00 +0000 (UTC), (Eric
da Red) wrote:
In article <1gkh1oa.1drel554p0sh0N%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote:
ester <ester@home.net> wrote:
you seriously think it's ethical to filibuster a judge BASED ON IDEOLOGY
Depends on the ideology.
That's why the process is in the constitution, you twit.
The GOP Congress thought this was a fine tactic in the late 1990's.
The first judicial filibuster on record is by the GOP to stop Abe
Fortas's appointment to the Supreme Court.
_______
Vote Bush/Voldemort 2004!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ester" |
|
| Title: Re: Why vote for Kerry or Bush? |
21 Sep 2004 06:39:27 PM |
|
|
Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gkh1oa.1drel554p0sh0N%usenet@mile23.c0m...
ester <ester@home.net> wrote:
you seriously think it's ethical to filibuster a judge BASED ON IDEOLOGY
Depends on the ideology.
That's why the process is in the constitution, you twit.
it is not ethical to do it based on ideology, any more than it is ethical to
amend the const. to take away people's rights, paul.
you disagree with the former, yet the former IS const.
filibustering for IDEOLOGICAL reasons is wrong
whit
--
"I've been to war. I've raised twins. If I had a choice, I'd rather go
to war." - GWB, Houston Chronicle, January 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Mitchum" |
|
| Title: Re: Why vote for Kerry or Bush? |
21 Sep 2004 07:27:17 PM |
|
|
ester <ester@home.net> wrote:
Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gkh1oa.1drel554p0sh0N%usenet@mile23.c0m...
ester <ester@home.net> wrote:
you seriously think it's ethical to filibuster a judge BASED ON IDEOLOGY
Depends on the ideology.
That's why the process is in the constitution, you twit.
it is not ethical to do it based on ideology,
Sure as ***** it *is* ethical, depending on the ideology. Are you saying
you can't imagine a court appointment that should be held up?
any more than it is ethical to amend the const. to take away people's
rights, paul.
you disagree with the former, yet the former IS const.
filibustering for IDEOLOGICAL reasons is wrong
No. Not wrong at all. THAT'S HOW REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT WORKS. You
know: republicanism. Maybe you'd want to learn a thing or two about it.
--
"I've been to war. I've raised twins. If I had a choice, I'd rather go
to war." - GWB, Houston Chronicle, January 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "Who Cares!" |
|
| Title: Re: Why vote for Kerry or Bush? |
22 Sep 2004 10:51:00 AM |
|
|
"Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gkh38o.130zc2k1t2m574N%usenet@mile23.c0m...
| ester <ester@home.net> wrote:
|
| > Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
| > news:1gkh1oa.1drel554p0sh0N%usenet@mile23.c0m...
| > > ester <ester@home.net> wrote:
| > >
| > > > you seriously think it's ethical to filibuster a judge BASED
ON IDEOLOGY
| > >
| > > Depends on the ideology.
| > >
| > > That's why the process is in the constitution, you twit.
| >
| > it is not ethical to do it based on ideology,
|
| Sure as ***** it *is* ethical, depending on the ideology. Are you
saying
| you can't imagine a court appointment that should be held up?
If it is that bad, that wrong, then it WOULD NOT BE CONFIRMED - but at
least it would come to a vote.
But then again,
Who Cares!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Why vote for Kerry or Bush? |
22 Sep 2004 01:02:16 AM |
|
|
usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote in message news:<1gkgxaq.1mj4ikx1pkw0cmN%usenet@mile23.c0m>...
ester <ester@home.net> wrote:
Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gkgwj0.10tdgdwfgnjppN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
ester <ester@home.net> wrote:
Sorry, Bush would install more of his slimeball supreme court
justices.
riiiiiight. like the ones who got overwhelming approval from lawyer's
associations, peers, etc. yet were filibustered (a precedent) so an
actual vote was impossible.
purely based on ideology.
Exactly. A rare case of Democrats doing their job.
it's an odious precedent.
These are odious times.
Excuse me if I wrong here, but wasn't you that brought up "integrity"
not too long ago?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Mitchum" |
|
| Title: Re: Why vote for Kerry or Bush? |
22 Sep 2004 04:12:25 AM |
|
|
Al <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote in message
news:<1gkgxaq.1mj4ikx1pkw0cmN%usenet@mile23.c0m>...
ester <ester@home.net> wrote:
Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gkgwj0.10tdgdwfgnjppN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
ester <ester@home.net> wrote:
Sorry, Bush would install more of his slimeball supreme court
justices.
riiiiiight. like the ones who got overwhelming approval from
lawyer's associations, peers, etc. yet were filibustered (a
precedent) so an actual vote was impossible.
purely based on ideology.
Exactly. A rare case of Democrats doing their job.
it's an odious precedent.
These are odious times.
Excuse me if I wrong here, but wasn't you that brought up "integrity" not
too long ago?
Yup. Are you trying to say that a congressional filibuster represents a
lack of integrity?
--
"I've been to war. I've raised twins. If I had a choice, I'd rather go
to war." - GWB, Houston Chronicle, January 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Why vote for Kerry or Bush? |
22 Sep 2004 06:26:59 PM |
|
|
usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote in message news:<1gkhrte.12rfbhm18ozr3jN%usenet@mile23.c0m>...
Al <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote in message
news:<1gkgxaq.1mj4ikx1pkw0cmN%usenet@mile23.c0m>...
ester <ester@home.net> wrote:
Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gkgwj0.10tdgdwfgnjppN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
ester <ester@home.net> wrote:
Sorry, Bush would install more of his slimeball supreme court
justices.
riiiiiight. like the ones who got overwhelming approval from
lawyer's associations, peers, etc. yet were filibustered (a
precedent) so an actual vote was impossible.
purely based on ideology.
Exactly. A rare case of Democrats doing their job.
it's an odious precedent.
These are odious times.
Excuse me if I wrong here, but wasn't you that brought up "integrity" not
too long ago?
Yup. Are you trying to say that a congressional filibuster represents a
lack of integrity?
Integrity is not changing the rules even if the times are "odious."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Mitchum" |
|
| Title: Re: Why vote for Kerry or Bush? |
22 Sep 2004 07:52:16 PM |
|
|
Al <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote in message
news:<1gkhrte.12rfbhm18ozr3jN%usenet@mile23.c0m>...
Al <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote in message
news:<1gkgxaq.1mj4ikx1pkw0cmN%usenet@mile23.c0m>...
ester <ester@home.net> wrote:
Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gkgwj0.10tdgdwfgnjppN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
ester <ester@home.net> wrote:
Sorry, Bush would install more of his slimeball supreme
court justices.
riiiiiight. like the ones who got overwhelming approval from
lawyer's associations, peers, etc. yet were filibustered (a
precedent) so an actual vote was impossible.
purely based on ideology.
Exactly. A rare case of Democrats doing their job.
it's an odious precedent.
These are odious times.
Excuse me if I wrong here, but wasn't you that brought up "integrity"
not too long ago?
Yup. Are you trying to say that a congressional filibuster represents a
lack of integrity?
Integrity is not changing the rules even if the times are "odious."
What rules were changed? Here, I'll answer that for you: None.
--
"I've been to war. I've raised twins. If I had a choice, I'd rather go
to war." - GWB, Houston Chronicle, January 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Why vote for Kerry or Bush? |
23 Sep 2004 09:35:24 AM |
|
|
usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote in message news:<1gkixtj.dcggl8r0ptybN%usenet@mile23.c0m>...
Al <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote in message
news:<1gkhrte.12rfbhm18ozr3jN%usenet@mile23.c0m>...
Al <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote in message
news:<1gkgxaq.1mj4ikx1pkw0cmN%usenet@mile23.c0m>...
ester <ester@home.net> wrote:
Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gkgwj0.10tdgdwfgnjppN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
ester <ester@home.net> wrote:
Sorry, Bush would install more of his slimeball supreme
court justices.
riiiiiight. like the ones who got overwhelming approval from
lawyer's associations, peers, etc. yet were filibustered (a
precedent) so an actual vote was impossible.
purely based on ideology.
Exactly. A rare case of Democrats doing their job.
it's an odious precedent.
These are odious times.
Excuse me if I wrong here, but wasn't you that brought up "integrity"
not too long ago?
Yup. Are you trying to say that a congressional filibuster represents a
lack of integrity?
Integrity is not changing the rules even if the times are "odious."
What rules were changed? Here, I'll answer that for you: None.
Filibustering justices due to "ideology." Can't you follow a thread?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Mitchum" |
|
| Title: Re: Why vote for Kerry or Bush? |
23 Sep 2004 04:54:30 PM |
|
|
Al <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote in message
news:<1gkixtj.dcggl8r0ptybN%usenet@mile23.c0m>...
Al <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote in message
news:<1gkhrte.12rfbhm18ozr3jN%usenet@mile23.c0m>...
Al <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote in message
news:<1gkgxaq.1mj4ikx1pkw0cmN%usenet@mile23.c0m>...
ester <ester@home.net> wrote:
Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gkgwj0.10tdgdwfgnjppN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
ester <ester@home.net> wrote:
Sorry, Bush would install more of his slimeball supreme
court justices.
riiiiiight. like the ones who got overwhelming approval from
lawyer's associations, peers, etc. yet were filibustered (a
precedent) so an actual vote was impossible.
purely based on ideology.
Exactly. A rare case of Democrats doing their job.
it's an odious precedent.
These are odious times.
Excuse me if I wrong here, but wasn't you that brought up "integrity"
not too long ago?
Yup. Are you trying to say that a congressional filibuster represents a
lack of integrity?
Integrity is not changing the rules even if the times are "odious."
What rules were changed? Here, I'll answer that for you: None.
Filibustering justices due to "ideology." Can't you follow a thread?
That's USING the rules. No rules were changed.
--
"I've been to war. I've raised twins. If I had a choice, I'd rather go
to war." - GWB, Houston Chronicle, January 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Why vote for Kerry or Bush? |
24 Sep 2004 10:43:51 AM |
|
|
usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote in message news:<1gkkkh4.e48yrb148swpzN%usenet@mile23.c0m>...
Al <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote in message
news:<1gkixtj.dcggl8r0ptybN%usenet@mile23.c0m>...
Al <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote in message
news:<1gkhrte.12rfbhm18ozr3jN%usenet@mile23.c0m>...
Al <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote in message
news:<1gkgxaq.1mj4ikx1pkw0cmN%usenet@mile23.c0m>...
ester <ester@home.net> wrote:
Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gkgwj0.10tdgdwfgnjppN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
ester <ester@home.net> wrote:
Sorry, Bush would install more of his slimeball supreme
court justices.
riiiiiight. like the ones who got overwhelming approval from
lawyer's associations, peers, etc. yet were filibustered (a
precedent) so an actual vote was impossible.
purely based on ideology.
Exactly. A rare case of Democrats doing their job.
it's an odious precedent.
These are odious times.
Excuse me if I wrong here, but wasn't you that brought up "integrity"
not too long ago?
Yup. Are you trying to say that a congressional filibuster represents a
lack of integrity?
Integrity is not changing the rules even if the times are "odious."
What rules were changed? Here, I'll answer that for you: None.
Filibustering justices due to "ideology." Can't you follow a thread?
That's USING the rules. No rules were changed.
It's a precedent and if ever a Democrat were president again you can
expect the favor to be returned in spades.
.
|
|
|
| User: "pyridox" |
|
| Title: Re: Why vote for Kerry or Bush? |
24 Sep 2004 04:26:19 PM |
|
|
Al <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:3965eb5d.0409240743.721323bd@posting.google.com...
usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote in message
news:<1gkkkh4.e48yrb148swpzN%usenet@mile23.c0m>...
Al <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote in message
news:<1gkixtj.dcggl8r0ptybN%usenet@mile23.c0m>...
Al <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote in message
news:<1gkhrte.12rfbhm18ozr3jN%usenet@mile23.c0m>...
Al <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote in message
news:<1gkgxaq.1mj4ikx1pkw0cmN%usenet@mile23.c0m>...
ester <ester@home.net> wrote:
Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gkgwj0.10tdgdwfgnjppN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
ester <ester@home.net> wrote:
Sorry, Bush would install more of his slimeball
supreme
court justices.
riiiiiight. like the ones who got overwhelming
approval from
lawyer's associations, peers, etc. yet were
filibustered (a
precedent) so an actual vote was impossible.
purely based on ideology.
Exactly. A rare case of Democrats doing their job.
it's an odious precedent.
These are odious times.
Excuse me if I wrong here, but wasn't you that brought up
"integrity"
not too long ago?
Yup. Are you trying to say that a congressional filibuster
represents a
lack of integrity?
Integrity is not changing the rules even if the times are
"odious."
What rules were changed? Here, I'll answer that for you: None.
Filibustering justices due to "ideology." Can't you follow a thread?
That's USING the rules. No rules were changed.
It's a precedent and if ever a Democrat were president again you can
expect the favor to be returned in spades.
and if repubs had set the precedent, partisan lefties would be screaming
"it's UNPRECEDENTED"
whit
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Mitchum" |
|
| Title: Re: Why vote for Kerry or Bush? |
24 Sep 2004 04:47:06 PM |
|
|
pyridox <pyridox@earthlink.net> wrote:
and if repubs had set the precedent, partisan lefties would be screaming
"it's UNPRECEDENTED"
Actually, as retrogrouch pointed out: "The first judicial filibuster on
record is by the GOP to stop Abe Fortas's appointment to the Supreme
Court."
So whine all you want.
--
"I've been to war. I've raised twins. If I had a choice, I'd rather go
to war." - GWB, Houston Chronicle, January 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "pyridox" |
|
| Title: Re: Why vote for Kerry or Bush? |
24 Sep 2004 05:05:10 PM |
|
|
Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gkmgsm.k1loc1239y3nN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
pyridox <pyridox@earthlink.net> wrote:
and if repubs had set the precedent, partisan lefties would be screaming
"it's UNPRECEDENTED"
Actually, as retrogrouch pointed out: "The first judicial filibuster on
record is by the GOP to stop Abe Fortas's appointment to the Supreme
Court."
So whine all you want.
he's right paul.
i was wrong. it was not unprecedented.
whit
--
"I've been to war. I've raised twins. If I had a choice, I'd rather go
to war." - GWB, Houston Chronicle, January 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Mitchum" |
|
| Title: Re: Why vote for Kerry or Bush? |
24 Sep 2004 05:08:59 PM |
|
|
pyridox <pyridox@earthlink.net> wrote:
Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gkmgsm.k1loc1239y3nN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
pyridox <pyridox@earthlink.net> wrote:
and if repubs had set the precedent, partisan lefties would be
screaming "it's UNPRECEDENTED"
Actually, as retrogrouch pointed out: "The first judicial filibuster on
record is by the GOP to stop Abe Fortas's appointment to the Supreme
Court."
So whine all you want.
he's right paul.
i was wrong. it was not unprecedented.
I know you'll balk at the URL, but so what:
<http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=11630>
--
"I've been to war. I've raised twins. If I had a choice, I'd rather go
to war." - GWB, Houston Chronicle, January 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "pyridox" |
|
| Title: Re: Why vote for Kerry or Bush? |
24 Sep 2004 05:18:52 PM |
|
|
Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gkmhxz.1pj99jr1mweoc1N%usenet@mile23.c0m...
pyridox <pyridox@earthlink.net> wrote:
Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gkmgsm.k1loc1239y3nN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
pyridox <pyridox@earthlink.net> wrote:
and if repubs had set the precedent, partisan lefties would be
screaming "it's UNPRECEDENTED"
Actually, as retrogrouch pointed out: "The first judicial filibuster
on
record is by the GOP to stop Abe Fortas's appointment to the Supreme
Court."
So whine all you want.
he's right paul.
i was wrong. it was not unprecedented.
I know you'll balk at the URL, but so what:
<http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=11630>
why?
as a matter of fact, i've already read it
hth
whit
--
"I've been to war. I've raised twins. If I had a choice, I'd rather go
to war." - GWB, Houston Chronicle, January 2002
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Mitchum" |
|
| Title: Re: Why vote for Kerry or Bush? |
24 Sep 2004 04:38:18 PM |
|
|
Al <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote in message
news:<1gkkkh4.e48yrb148swpzN%usenet@mile23.c0m>...
[..]
Integrity is not changing the rules even if the times are "odious."
What rules were changed? Here, I'll answer that for you: None.
Filibustering justices due to "ideology." Can't you follow a thread?
That's USING the rules. No rules were changed.
It's a precedent and if ever a Democrat were president again you can
expect the favor to be returned in spades.
So then you've learned that the rules weren't changed. Good for you.
--
"I've been to war. I've raised twins. If I had a choice, I'd rather go
to war." - GWB, Houston Chronicle, January 2002
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
