| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"BW" |
| Date: |
14 Nov 2003 08:54:34 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Falsities on the Senate Floor |
"loaferboss" <loaferboss@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BBDA4BDF.97E3%loaferboss@comcast.net...
Democrats have joined Republicans in confirming 168 of Bush's other
judicial
nominees, dropping the bench's vacancy rate to below 5 percent, its lowest
level in more than a decade.
So why do the Democrats not want to allow the women nominated to even be
*voted* upon by the Senate, as the Constitution specifies??
.
|
|
| User: "Blutak" |
|
| Title: Re: Falsities on the Senate Floor |
14 Nov 2003 09:12:08 AM |
|
|
"BW" <bw4@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:K06tb.199710$Fm2.187037@attbi_s04...
"loaferboss" <loaferboss@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BBDA4BDF.97E3%loaferboss@comcast.net...
Democrats have joined Republicans in confirming 168 of Bush's other
judicial
nominees, dropping the bench's vacancy rate to below 5 percent, its
lowest
level in more than a decade.
So why do the Democrats not want to allow the women nominated to even be
*voted* upon by the Senate, as the Constitution specifies??
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=express&s=crowley111303
"With evident delight, Reid also quoted from a GOP email that Democrats had
somehow acquired that day.
It is important to double your efforts to get your boss to S-230 on time.
Fox News channel is really excited about the marathon. Britt [sic] Hume at 6
would love to open the door to all our 51 Senators walking on to the floor.
The producer wants to know, will we walk in exactly at 6:02 when the show
starts so we can get it live to open Britt Hume's show? Or, if not, can we
give them an exact time for the walk-in start?
Illinois Democrat Richard Durbin then asked Reid, with a funny
faux-earnestness, whether "we [will] get updates from time to time how Fox
News would like to orchestrate the rest of this?" "Perhaps so," Reid replied
with a smile. "If not, maybe we could check with the Federalist Society,
which, coincidentally, is starting their convention tomorrow." This was
masterful stuff. Later in the night I would overhear one irked Republican
staffer mutter to another "How did they get that email?"
.
|
|
|
| User: "BW" |
|
| Title: Re: Falsities on the Senate Floor |
14 Nov 2003 09:46:51 AM |
|
|
<Blutak> wrote in message news:1068822788.20070.0@lotis.uk.clara.net...
"BW" <bw4@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:K06tb.199710$Fm2.187037@attbi_s04...
"loaferboss" <loaferboss@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BBDA4BDF.97E3%loaferboss@comcast.net...
Democrats have joined Republicans in confirming 168 of Bush's other
judicial
nominees, dropping the bench's vacancy rate to below 5 percent, its
lowest
level in more than a decade.
So why do the Democrats not want to allow the women nominated to even be
*voted* upon by the Senate, as the Constitution specifies??
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=express&s=crowley111303
"With evident delight, Reid also quoted from a GOP email that Democrats
had
somehow acquired that day.
It is important to double your efforts to get your boss to S-230 on
time.
Fox News channel is really excited about the marathon. Britt [sic] Hume at
6
would love to open the door to all our 51 Senators walking on to the
floor.
The producer wants to know, will we walk in exactly at 6:02 when the show
starts so we can get it live to open Britt Hume's show? Or, if not, can we
give them an exact time for the walk-in start?
Illinois Democrat Richard Durbin then asked Reid, with a funny
faux-earnestness, whether "we [will] get updates from time to time how Fox
News would like to orchestrate the rest of this?" "Perhaps so," Reid
replied
with a smile. "If not, maybe we could check with the Federalist Society,
which, coincidentally, is starting their convention tomorrow." This was
masterful stuff. Later in the night I would overhear one irked Republican
staffer mutter to another "How did they get that email?"
So why do the Democrats not want to allow the women nominated to even be
*voted* upon by the Senate, as the Constitution specifies??
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "loaferboss" |
|
| Title: Re: Falsities on the Senate Floor |
14 Nov 2003 09:46:05 AM |
|
|
From: <Blutak>
Newsgroups:
alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.usa,alt.politics.democra
ts.d
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 15:12:08 -0000
Subject: Re: Falsities on the Senate Floor
"BW" <bw4@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:K06tb.199710$Fm2.187037@attbi_s04...
"loaferboss" <loaferboss@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BBDA4BDF.97E3%loaferboss@comcast.net...
Democrats have joined Republicans in confirming 168 of Bush's other
judicial
nominees, dropping the bench's vacancy rate to below 5 percent, its
lowest
level in more than a decade.
So why do the Democrats not want to allow the women nominated to even be
*voted* upon by the Senate, as the Constitution specifies??
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=express&s=crowley111303
"With evident delight, Reid also quoted from a GOP email that Democrats had
somehow acquired that day.
It is important to double your efforts to get your boss to S-230 on time.
Fox News channel is really excited about the marathon. Britt [sic] Hume at 6
would love to open the door to all our 51 Senators walking on to the floor.
The producer wants to know, will we walk in exactly at 6:02 when the show
starts so we can get it live to open Britt Hume's show? Or, if not, can we
give them an exact time for the walk-in start?
Illinois Democrat Richard Durbin then asked Reid, with a funny
faux-earnestness, whether "we [will] get updates from time to time how Fox
News would like to orchestrate the rest of this?" "Perhaps so," Reid replied
with a smile. "If not, maybe we could check with the Federalist Society,
which, coincidentally, is starting their convention tomorrow." This was
masterful stuff. Later in the night I would overhear one irked Republican
staffer mutter to another "How did they get that email?"
LOL ... wonder if it was from the same guy who pawned off the CNN memo about
the debates?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "loaferboss" |
|
| Title: Re: Falsities on the Senate Floor |
14 Nov 2003 09:13:11 AM |
|
|
From: "BW" <bw4@verizon.net>
Organization: Comcast Online
Newsgroups:
alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.usa,alt.politics.democra
ts.d
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 14:54:34 GMT
Subject: Re: Falsities on the Senate Floor
"loaferboss" <loaferboss@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BBDA4BDF.97E3%loaferboss@comcast.net...
Democrats have joined Republicans in confirming 168 of Bush's other
judicial
nominees, dropping the bench's vacancy rate to below 5 percent, its lowest
level in more than a decade.
So why do the Democrats not want to allow the women nominated to even be
*voted* upon by the Senate, as the Constitution specifies??
women, women, women - all you see is ethnicity or gender. These are judges
.... my goodness. You always have to categorize people for political gain -
that's how you wingnuts operate.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BW" |
|
| Title: Re: Falsities on the Senate Floor |
14 Nov 2003 09:46:51 AM |
|
|
"loaferboss" <loaferboss@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BBDA6947.983C%loaferboss@comcast.net...
From: "BW" <bw4@verizon.net>
Organization: Comcast Online
Newsgroups:
alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.usa,alt.politics.democ
ra
ts.d
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 14:54:34 GMT
Subject: Re: Falsities on the Senate Floor
"loaferboss" <loaferboss@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BBDA4BDF.97E3%loaferboss@comcast.net...
Democrats have joined Republicans in confirming 168 of Bush's other
judicial
nominees, dropping the bench's vacancy rate to below 5 percent, its
lowest
level in more than a decade.
So why do the Democrats not want to allow the women nominated to even be
*voted* upon by the Senate, as the Constitution specifies??
women, women, women - all you see is ethnicity or gender. These are judges
... my goodness. You always have to categorize people for political gain -
that's how you wingnuts operate.
So why do the Democrats not want to allow the women nominated to even be
*voted* upon by the Senate, as the Constitution specifies??
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Frog" |
|
| Title: Re: Falsities on the Senate Floor |
14 Nov 2003 09:42:17 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:13:11 -0400, loaferboss
<loaferboss@comcast.net> wrote:
From: "BW" <bw4@verizon.net>
Organization: Comcast Online
Newsgroups:
alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.usa,alt.politics.democra
ts.d
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 14:54:34 GMT
Subject: Re: Falsities on the Senate Floor
"loaferboss" <loaferboss@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BBDA4BDF.97E3%loaferboss@comcast.net...
Democrats have joined Republicans in confirming 168 of Bush's other
judicial
nominees, dropping the bench's vacancy rate to below 5 percent, its lowest
level in more than a decade.
So why do the Democrats not want to allow the women nominated to even be
*voted* upon by the Senate, as the Constitution specifies??
women, women, women - all you see is ethnicity or gender. These are judges
... my goodness. You always have to categorize people for political gain -
that's how you wingnuts operate.
You didn't answer the question.........."why do the Democrats not want
to allow the women nominated to even be *voted* upon by the Senate?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity'
is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity,"
American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
.
|
|
|
| User: "loaferboss" |
|
| Title: Re: Falsities on the Senate Floor |
14 Nov 2003 09:48:23 AM |
|
|
From: The Frog <jmattNOSPAM@ticnet.com>
Reply-To:
Newsgroups:
alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.usa,alt.politics.democra
ts.d
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 09:42:17 -0600
Subject: Re: Falsities on the Senate Floor
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:13:11 -0400, loaferboss
<loaferboss@comcast.net> wrote:
From: "BW" <bw4@verizon.net>
Organization: Comcast Online
Newsgroups:
alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.usa,alt.politics.democ
ra
ts.d
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 14:54:34 GMT
Subject: Re: Falsities on the Senate Floor
"loaferboss" <loaferboss@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BBDA4BDF.97E3%loaferboss@comcast.net...
Democrats have joined Republicans in confirming 168 of Bush's other
judicial
nominees, dropping the bench's vacancy rate to below 5 percent, its lowest
level in more than a decade.
So why do the Democrats not want to allow the women nominated to even be
*voted* upon by the Senate, as the Constitution specifies??
women, women, women - all you see is ethnicity or gender. These are judges
... my goodness. You always have to categorize people for political gain -
that's how you wingnuts operate.
You didn't answer the question.........."why do the Democrats not want
to allow the women nominated to even be *voted* upon by the Senate?
That question has been answered repeatedly - these judges are activists and
activists do not belong - of any ideology.
But, I'm still fascinated that BW - and, apparently you - keep pointing out
they are women - is it all you see, gender?
.
|
|
|
| User: "BW" |
|
| Title: Re: Falsities on the Senate Floor |
14 Nov 2003 01:44:12 PM |
|
|
"loaferboss" <loaferboss@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BBDA7186.9877%loaferboss@comcast.net...
From: The Frog <jmattNOSPAM@ticnet.com>
Reply-To:
Newsgroups:
alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.usa,alt.politics.democ
ra
ts.d
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 09:42:17 -0600
Subject: Re: Falsities on the Senate Floor
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:13:11 -0400, loaferboss
<loaferboss@comcast.net> wrote:
From: "BW" <bw4@verizon.net>
Organization: Comcast Online
Newsgroups:
alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.usa,alt.politics.democ
ra
ts.d
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 14:54:34 GMT
Subject: Re: Falsities on the Senate Floor
"loaferboss" <loaferboss@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BBDA4BDF.97E3%loaferboss@comcast.net...
Democrats have joined Republicans in confirming 168 of Bush's other
judicial
nominees, dropping the bench's vacancy rate to below 5 percent, its
lowest
level in more than a decade.
So why do the Democrats not want to allow the women nominated to even
be
*voted* upon by the Senate, as the Constitution specifies??
women, women, women - all you see is ethnicity or gender. These are
judges
... my goodness. You always have to categorize people for political
gain -
that's how you wingnuts operate.
You didn't answer the question.........."why do the Democrats not want
to allow the women nominated to even be *voted* upon by the Senate?
That question has been answered repeatedly - these judges are activists
and
activists do not belong - of any ideology.
But, I'm still fascinated that BW - and, apparently you - keep pointing
out
they are women - is it all you see, gender?
No, they're also minorities. The Democrats are obstructing highly-qualified
women and minorities.
.
|
|
|
| User: "loaferboss" |
|
| Title: Re: Falsities on the Senate Floor |
14 Nov 2003 02:28:52 PM |
|
|
From: "BW" <bw4@verizon.net>
Organization: Comcast Online
Newsgroups:
alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.usa,alt.politics.democra
ts.d
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 19:44:12 GMT
Subject: Re: Falsities on the Senate Floor
"loaferboss" <loaferboss@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BBDA7186.9877%loaferboss@comcast.net...
From: The Frog <jmattNOSPAM@ticnet.com>
Reply-To:
Newsgroups:
alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.usa,alt.politics.democ
ra
ts.d
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 09:42:17 -0600
Subject: Re: Falsities on the Senate Floor
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:13:11 -0400, loaferboss
<loaferboss@comcast.net> wrote:
From: "BW" <bw4@verizon.net>
Organization: Comcast Online
Newsgroups:
alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.usa,alt.politics.democ
ra
ts.d
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 14:54:34 GMT
Subject: Re: Falsities on the Senate Floor
"loaferboss" <loaferboss@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BBDA4BDF.97E3%loaferboss@comcast.net...
Democrats have joined Republicans in confirming 168 of Bush's other
judicial
nominees, dropping the bench's vacancy rate to below 5 percent, its
lowest
level in more than a decade.
So why do the Democrats not want to allow the women nominated to even
be
*voted* upon by the Senate, as the Constitution specifies??
women, women, women - all you see is ethnicity or gender. These are
judges
... my goodness. You always have to categorize people for political
gain -
that's how you wingnuts operate.
You didn't answer the question.........."why do the Democrats not want
to allow the women nominated to even be *voted* upon by the Senate?
That question has been answered repeatedly - these judges are activists
and
activists do not belong - of any ideology.
But, I'm still fascinated that BW - and, apparently you - keep pointing
out
they are women - is it all you see, gender?
No, they're also minorities. The Democrats are obstructing highly-qualified
women and minorities.
Always have to define people as targeted groups - typical republican...
.
|
|
|
| User: "BW" |
|
| Title: Re: Falsities on the Senate Floor |
14 Nov 2003 04:38:56 PM |
|
|
"loaferboss" <loaferboss@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BBDAB344.9931%loaferboss@comcast.net...
But, I'm still fascinated that BW - and, apparently you - keep pointing
out
they are women - is it all you see, gender?
No, they're also minorities. The Democrats are obstructing
highly-qualified
women and minorities.
Always have to define people as targeted groups - typical republican...
I bet you Democrats aren't too keen these days on being defined as Democrats
either, speaking of groups which the voters have been targetting lately.....
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Frog" |
|
| Title: Re: Falsities on the Senate Floor |
14 Nov 2003 05:15:36 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:28:52 -0400, loaferboss
<loaferboss@comcast.net> wrote:
From: "BW" <bw4@verizon.net>
Organization: Comcast Online
Newsgroups:
alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.usa,alt.politics.democra
ts.d
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 19:44:12 GMT
Subject: Re: Falsities on the Senate Floor
"loaferboss" <loaferboss@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BBDA7186.9877%loaferboss@comcast.net...
From: The Frog <jmattNOSPAM@ticnet.com>
Reply-To:
Newsgroups:
alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.usa,alt.politics.democ
ra
ts.d
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 09:42:17 -0600
Subject: Re: Falsities on the Senate Floor
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:13:11 -0400, loaferboss
<loaferboss@comcast.net> wrote:
From: "BW" <bw4@verizon.net>
Organization: Comcast Online
Newsgroups:
alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.usa,alt.politics.democ
ra
ts.d
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 14:54:34 GMT
Subject: Re: Falsities on the Senate Floor
"loaferboss" <loaferboss@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BBDA4BDF.97E3%loaferboss@comcast.net...
Democrats have joined Republicans in confirming 168 of Bush's other
judicial
nominees, dropping the bench's vacancy rate to below 5 percent, its
lowest
level in more than a decade.
So why do the Democrats not want to allow the women nominated to even
be
*voted* upon by the Senate, as the Constitution specifies??
women, women, women - all you see is ethnicity or gender. These are
judges
... my goodness. You always have to categorize people for political
gain -
that's how you wingnuts operate.
You didn't answer the question.........."why do the Democrats not want
to allow the women nominated to even be *voted* upon by the Senate?
That question has been answered repeatedly - these judges are activists
and
activists do not belong - of any ideology.
But, I'm still fascinated that BW - and, apparently you - keep pointing
out
they are women - is it all you see, gender?
No, they're also minorities. The Democrats are obstructing highly-qualified
women and minorities.
Always have to define people as targeted groups - typical republican...
I think this is the ONLY time I have heard Democrats soft-peddle the
race issue on anything........
I think the Republicans are on to something here.......
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity'
is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity,"
American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Frog" |
|
| Title: Re: Falsities on the Senate Floor |
14 Nov 2003 10:17:26 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:48:23 -0400, loaferboss
<loaferboss@comcast.net> wrote:
From: The Frog <jmattNOSPAM@ticnet.com>
Reply-To:
Newsgroups:
alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.usa,alt.politics.democra
ts.d
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 09:42:17 -0600
Subject: Re: Falsities on the Senate Floor
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:13:11 -0400, loaferboss
<loaferboss@comcast.net> wrote:
From: "BW" <bw4@verizon.net>
Organization: Comcast Online
Newsgroups:
alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.usa,alt.politics.democ
ra
ts.d
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 14:54:34 GMT
Subject: Re: Falsities on the Senate Floor
"loaferboss" <loaferboss@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BBDA4BDF.97E3%loaferboss@comcast.net...
Democrats have joined Republicans in confirming 168 of Bush's other
judicial
nominees, dropping the bench's vacancy rate to below 5 percent, its lowest
level in more than a decade.
So why do the Democrats not want to allow the women nominated to even be
*voted* upon by the Senate, as the Constitution specifies??
women, women, women - all you see is ethnicity or gender. These are judges
... my goodness. You always have to categorize people for political gain -
that's how you wingnuts operate.
You didn't answer the question.........."why do the Democrats not want
to allow the women nominated to even be *voted* upon by the Senate?
That question has been answered repeatedly - these judges are activists and
activists do not belong - of any ideology.
Main Entry: 1main·stream
Pronunciation: 'mAn-"strEm
Function: noun
Date: 1831
a prevailing current or direction of activity or influence
- mainstream adjective
Majority of duly elected representatives of the people disagree with
you and would like an opportunity to see just how mainstream or not,
they trulyl are instead of just taking the Democrats' word for it.
Face it, the Democratic party is obstructing a democratic process and
that is how it will be remembered at the polls......
But, I'm still fascinated that BW - and, apparently you - keep pointing out
they are women - is it all you see, gender?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity'
is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity,"
American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Grapman" |
|
| Title: Re: Falsities on the Senate Floor |
14 Nov 2003 09:29:13 AM |
|
|
BW wrote:
"loaferboss" <loaferboss@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BBDA4BDF.97E3%loaferboss@comcast.net...
Democrats have joined Republicans in confirming 168 of Bush's other
judicial
nominees, dropping the bench's vacancy rate to below 5 percent, its lowest
level in more than a decade.
So why do the Democrats not want to allow the women nominated to even be
*voted* upon by the Senate, as the Constitution specifies??
WEre upset when the GOP did this to Clinton. Have you even read the
Constitution?
--
To reply via e-mail please delete one c from paccbell
.
|
|
|
| User: "BW" |
|
| Title: Re: Falsities on the Senate Floor |
14 Nov 2003 10:02:48 AM |
|
|
"George Grapman" <sfgeorge@paccbell.net> wrote in message
news:3FB4F4FA.5740885B@paccbell.net...
BW wrote:
"loaferboss" <loaferboss@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BBDA4BDF.97E3%loaferboss@comcast.net...
Democrats have joined Republicans in confirming 168 of Bush's other
judicial
nominees, dropping the bench's vacancy rate to below 5 percent, its
lowest
level in more than a decade.
So why do the Democrats not want to allow the women nominated to even be
*voted* upon by the Senate, as the Constitution specifies??
WEre upset when the GOP did this to Clinton.
The GOP NEVER did that to Clinton. Court nominees were voted on, by the
Senate, once they came out of committee. Which once again raises the
question:
Why do the Democrats not want to allow the women nominated to even be
*voted* upon by the Senate, as the Constitution specifies??
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Grapman" |
|
| Title: Re: Falsities on the Senate Floor |
14 Nov 2003 08:12:03 PM |
|
|
"BW" <bw4@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<I07tb.149254$275.452259@attbi_s53>...
"George Grapman" <sfgeorge@paccbell.net> wrote in message
news:3FB4F4FA.5740885B@paccbell.net...
BW wrote:
"loaferboss" <loaferboss@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BBDA4BDF.97E3%loaferboss@comcast.net...
Democrats have joined Republicans in confirming 168 of Bush's other
judicial
nominees, dropping the bench's vacancy rate to below 5 percent, its
lowest
level in more than a decade.
So why do the Democrats not want to allow the women nominated to even be
*voted* upon by the Senate, as the Constitution specifies??
WEre upset when the GOP did this to Clinton.
The GOP NEVER did that to Clinton. Court nominees were voted on, by the
Senate, once they came out of committee. Which once again raises the
question:
Why do the Democrats not want to allow the women nominated to even be
*voted* upon by the Senate, as the Constitution specifies??
55 never made it to the floor. Why?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Grapman" |
|
| Title: Re: Falsities on the Senate Floor |
14 Nov 2003 10:07:58 AM |
|
|
BW wrote:
The GOP NEVER did that to Clinton. Court nominees were voted on, by the
Senate, once they came out of committee. Which once again raises the
question:
55 of them never made it out of the committee.
Why do the Democrats not want to allow the women nominated to even be
*voted* upon by the Senate, as the Constitution specifies??
--
To reply via e-mail please delete one c from paccbell
.
|
|
|
| User: "BW" |
|
| Title: Re: Falsities on the Senate Floor |
14 Nov 2003 01:44:12 PM |
|
|
"George Grapman" <sfgeorge@paccbell.net> wrote in message
news:3FB4FE13.6AA2851F@paccbell.net...
BW wrote:
The GOP NEVER did that to Clinton. Court nominees were voted on, by the
Senate, once they came out of committee. Which once again raises the
question:
55 of them never made it out of the committee.
So? You Democrats actually think all nominees made by Republicans make it
out of committee??
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Frog" |
|
| Title: Re: Falsities on the Senate Floor |
14 Nov 2003 09:43:17 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 15:29:13 GMT, George Grapman
<sfgeorge@paccbell.net> wrote:
BW wrote:
"loaferboss" <loaferboss@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BBDA4BDF.97E3%loaferboss@comcast.net...
Democrats have joined Republicans in confirming 168 of Bush's other
judicial
nominees, dropping the bench's vacancy rate to below 5 percent, its lowest
level in more than a decade.
So why do the Democrats not want to allow the women nominated to even be
*voted* upon by the Senate, as the Constitution specifies??
WEre upset when the GOP did this to Clinton. Have you even read the
Constitution?
You didn't answer the question......."..why do the Democrats not want
to allow the women nominated to even be *voted* upon by the Senate?"
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity'
is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity,"
American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Grapman" |
|
| Title: Re: Falsities on the Senate Floor |
14 Nov 2003 09:54:42 AM |
|
|
The Frog wrote:
You didn't answer the question......."..why do the Democrats not want
to allow the women nominated to even be *voted* upon by the Senate?"
A woman who decided that a patients right to privacy was no violated when a
medical sales rep observed a procedure in the doctors office without her consent.
Now, tell us if you were upset when Clinton did get get a vote on some of his
nominations.
--
To reply via e-mail please delete one c from paccbell
.
|
|
|
| User: "BW" |
|
| Title: Re: Falsities on the Senate Floor |
14 Nov 2003 01:44:12 PM |
|
|
"George Grapman" <sfgeorge@paccbell.net> wrote in message
news:3FB4FAF6.1E9F8330@paccbell.net...
The Frog wrote:
You didn't answer the question......."..why do the Democrats not want
to allow the women nominated to even be *voted* upon by the Senate?"
A woman who decided that a patients right to privacy was no violated
when a
medical sales rep observed a procedure in the doctors office without her
consent.
Doesn't answer the question. The Democrats don't want to allow that
nominated minority to even be VOTED on by the Senate. Why?
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Grapman" |
|
| Title: Re: Falsities on the Senate Floor |
14 Nov 2003 08:10:58 PM |
|
|
"BW" <bw4@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<ggatb.2293$Dw6.17361@attbi_s02>...
"George Grapman" <sfgeorge@paccbell.net> wrote in message
news:3FB4FAF6.1E9F8330@paccbell.net...
The Frog wrote:
You didn't answer the question......."..why do the Democrats not want
to allow the women nominated to even be *voted* upon by the Senate?"
A woman who decided that a patients right to privacy was no violated
when a
medical sales rep observed a procedure in the doctors office without her
consent.
Doesn't answer the question. The Democrats don't want to allow that
nominated minority to even be VOTED on by the Senate. Why?
If you had a second brain cell you would understand that it was an answer.
Why are you so shy about the Clinton mominees who never got to the floor?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Frog" |
|
| Title: Re: Falsities on the Senate Floor |
14 Nov 2003 10:13:48 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 15:54:42 GMT, George Grapman
<sfgeorge@paccbell.net> wrote:
The Frog wrote:
You didn't answer the question......."..why do the Democrats not want
to allow the women nominated to even be *voted* upon by the Senate?"
A woman who decided that a patients right to privacy was no violated when a
medical sales rep observed a procedure in the doctors office without her consent.
Now, tell us if you were upset when Clinton did get get a vote on some of his
nominations.
You didn't answer the question......."..why do the Democrats not want
to allow the women nominated to even be *voted* upon by the Senate?"
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity'
is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity,"
American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
