"Marvin" <marvin2@FOGstarband.net> wrote in news:c76e0$427019a5$943fe1b6
$26092@STARBAND.NET:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:1114639376.f50f37702c43cf9a396b1d6f59740955@teranews...
"Marvin" <marvin2@FOGstarband.net> wrote in
news:6fbe8$426fd688$943fe1b6$24183@STARBAND.NET:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:1114631978.030e53bb78d805458f6d703851d59699@teranews...
"Marvin" <marvin2@FOGstarband.net> wrote in
news:6703$426fcdb6$943fe1b6
$23925@STARBAND.NET:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:1114625300.0c4a57c6c2c33623641a6a6b3bab8230@teranews...
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in
news:426FC81A.198B9B31@serv.net:
You are ignoring the fact that the Senate has
withheld
approval of a
fraction of Bush's judicial nominees compared to the
number of
Clinton's judicial nominees.
You ignore the fact that every single one of Clinton's
judicial nominees
got a vote on the Senate floor. Every one.
[snip]
Those Clinton nominees were "held up" by committee
votes, not
filibusters. But don't let minor details like the
facts get
in your way.
--
Fred Stone
Now which was it? They all got votes on the Senate
floor? Or
they never got to the floor?
They were voted down by a majority vote.
But not all got a vote by the entire Senate. Isn't it
possible that some of those denied by committee would have
been confirmed if they'd had an up or down vote on the
floor?
The fact that one party had a slight majority in the
Senate
giving them one more vote in the committee does not change
the
fact that they denied the President's wishes.
So this is all revenge for Clinton nominees?
All this insistance on majority rule seems a bit
hypocritical,
considering the present source. These are the guys who
defended the election of Mr. Bush when he not only failed
to
poll a majority of the popular vote, but actually received
fewer votes than the candidate in second place, then sued
to
prevent a recount in a pivotal state.
Bush didn't prevent a recount. There were at least three,
all of which
Gore lost. Bush sued when the Democrats tried to override
the
certification deadline and *keep on recounting* with
different rules
until they "found" enough votes.
It might appear that
they're concerned about the minority's voice only when
they're
in the minority. Of course, I'm sure you have a
bumper-sticker-length response and justification.
Of course I do, it's called the Constitution.
I guess you only care about that when it works for you.
No matter how you slice it, Mr. Bush has had almost all
of his
appointees confirmed, Mr. Clinton lost out on a far
greater
percentage.
They were voted on and lost a majority vote.
The Democrats have stated some displeasure with
several, but no great effort was mounted except in the
cases
in which the appointees have been ideologues. It's
normal for
partisans to demonize one another, and it's also to be
expected that the minority will use every tool
available to
oppose the majority when an important enough principle
is
involved.
Apparantly the principle involved is that they aren't
liberals.
LOL. Obviously. Mr. Bush hasn't nominated one yet. But
some
are just so rabidly un-liberal and anxious to return to
the
pre-1929 Golden Age.
All of the 10 nominees have sterling records, with high
marks from the
ABA. For at least one of them, the "fault" cited by the
Democrats was
that she upheld a state law.
--
Fred Stone
There's little reason to be surprised that we see things
differently, but you puzzle me. The Constitution is very
important, of course, and until it is amended to correct the
eighteenth century holdover that we call the electoral
college, Presidents will continue to be elected by real estate
rather than people, and that is the law. Regardless, you
know, but won't likely admit, there never was a genuine
recount in the 2000 Florida mess, and there should have been.
No, I don't know that. I know that there were at least three recounts.
What was not genuine were the Democrats' attempts to fudge the results
with their "pregnant chads" and their attempts to mind-read "voter
intent". What *YOU* don't seem to want to admit is that your guy lost
the election.
That is water long since under the bridge, and you just won't move on.
You let that stick in your gut and you let it warp your thinking.
It's possible the end result would have been the same - we'll
never know for sure - but there was no reason it could not
have happened. Yes, I know, the Constitution. But again, you
know that could have been handled. It should have been.
And no, I don't know that the Constitution could or should have been
"handled". I don't accept that the rules should be changed just because
your side lost the game. If Gore had indeed won in Florida, you wouldn't
be hearing me complain about how Bush got cheated out of the White
House. You might be hearing me complain about what a Greenie moron he
was, but that's a different subject.
Now the puzzlement part. What makes you defend this bunch?
Arguments like yours. After-the-fact excuses for why your guy should
have won when he clearly did not win. Changing the rules after the game
is over to "prove" that your guy "really didn't lose". Whining about how
our clear enemies don't like us because we stand up to them.
If you were a fundamentalist Christian, I'd have some idea.
Corporate greed and dispensationalist Christianity are a good
match. Neither group believes they'll have to suffer the
consequences of their policies. The corporate types who
preach that everything will be a perfect utopia if we'll just
remove all regulations and let them run the world are well on
their way to creating a new kind of serfdom with themselves in
positions of privilege.
And nice socialist talk like that with no relation to the real world.
Corporate types that I have known, and I have known quite a few of them,
do not preach that they should be allowed to run the world. Most of them
are quite happy to run their own companies.
The Christian rapture believers
expect to be removed from the earth when conditions get too
bad, and many believe it is their responsibility to use up the
earth to hasten His coming.
More of same. I know a lot of Christian rapture believers and not one of
them believes that their responsibility is to trash the earth. On the
contrary, they believe in "stewardship" which means taking care of
things, they think they'll be judged on how well they have managed their
resources, not how thoroughly they have used them up.
The origin of your statement goes back to a completely false quote that
Bill Moyers put into the mouth of James Watt, who was Ronald Reagan's
Secretary of the Interior. Moyers has long since admitted that he made
up the quote.
Now it's possible you're one of
the corporate types, but if not, I simply can't understand why
you defend policies that are so clearly harmful to most
Americans, if not many it other parts of the world.
I don't see them as harmful, on balance. While we have put troops in
harms way, in the process we are working to eliminate a greater threat.
The Democrats' trend toward appeasement and isolationism only resulted
in a rude awakening when we became the target of people like Osama bin
Laden and Saddam Hussein.
Diplomatically, Bush has called a spade a spade. What a refreshing
change that is! North Korea *is* a tyrannical hellhole, and Kim Jong-Il
should be called what he is, a raving maniac. The UN *is* a corrupt body
which only seems to provide shelter for tyrants and terrorists and
excuses for genocide and rape and pillage.
Judicially, the Democrats and their liberal allies have gone too far.
They invent "rights" out of thin air and impose sweeping legal changes
at the whim of a few judges instead of convincing voters and
legislatures. They talk big about rights but then ignore the *right to
vote* in their rush to force everyone to adhere to their grand vision of
how society "should" operate.
I'm willing to let you have the last word on this. This
exchange has already begun to feel a little like a "I know you
are but what am I" kind of thing. I will be pleased, and very
surprised, if you manage to come up with something that
doesn't sound like Fox News or Rush Limbaugh.
I would be equally pleased if you didn't sound like Michael Moore.
I don't like Rush Limbaugh and I rarely listen to FOX News. I get my
news from lots of sources.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
