| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Bush 324 - Kerry 165" |
| Date: |
03 Nov 2004 08:44:50 AM |
| Object: |
we can pack the Supreme Court with pro-life judges |
We've got one sicky already who may not even be alive 6 months from now. We
got a couple of others on the court who are quite elderly. So President
Bush may have as many as 3 to 4 Supreme Court justices who will need to be
replaced.
President Bush has a HUGE mandate from the American people, having won the
largest Popular Vote in America's history. He also has an even larger
margin in the Senate, plus a more conservative Senate than before.
I'd like to see President Bush apply a strict litmus test, and nominate 3 to
4 replacements who will pledge to vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.
.
|
|
| User: "Winston Smith, American Patriot" |
|
| Title: Re: we can pack the Supreme Court with pro-life judges |
03 Nov 2004 08:57:31 AM |
|
|
"Bush 324 - Kerry 165" <FlushJohns@DemsSux.com> wrote in
news:C96id.1163$Gm6.1106@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:
We've got one sicky already who may not even be alive 6 months from
now.
That "sicky" is one of yours, you dumfuk right winger.
We got a couple of others on the court who are quite elderly.
O'Connor was thinking of retiring already, and her replacement couldn't
be much more right wing than any idiot who put Bush into the White House
his first term.
So President Bush may have as many as 3 to 4 Supreme Court justices
who will need to be replaced.
You're going to have to hope the left wing of the court dies with their
robes on, as I doubt now they will give the leader of you simians the
chance to replace them.
President Bush has a HUGE mandate from the American people, having won
the largest Popular Vote in America's history.
He gets barely 50% of the popular vote and you are daring to call that a
"mandate"?
Well if you are really that daring, why are you not as daring in calling
your mother the ***** that she is?
He also has an even
larger margin in the Senate, plus a more conservative Senate than
before.
Wanna bet that the first order of business when the Senate convenes in
January is to change the rules permitting a filibuster?
I'd like to see President Bush apply a strict litmus test, and
nominate 3 to 4 replacements who will pledge to vote to overturn Roe
v. Wade.
Hell, what's to stop Bush from putting 11 or 13 justices on the court??
"Court packing" has been done before, so we are told. And it's not as
if Bush is against the extra overhead with half-a-trillion dollar
deficits to his name.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bush 324 - Kerry 165" |
|
| Title: Re: we can pack the Supreme Court with pro-life judges |
03 Nov 2004 09:18:26 AM |
|
|
"Winston Smith, American Patriot" <FranzKafka@Oceania.WhiteHouse.GOV> wrote
in message news:Xns9596AC8A832C3WSAP1960@64.164.98.6...
"Bush 324 - Kerry 165" <FlushJohns@DemsSux.com> wrote in
news:C96id.1163$Gm6.1106@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:
We've got one sicky already who may not even be alive 6 months from
now.
That "sicky" is one of yours, you dumfuk right winger.
America spoke, in ONE voice. and they said, "***** Kerry, ***** Socialist
Democrats, and ***** YOU!"
There is NOTHING to prevent us from packing the Supreme Court with
appointees of OUR choice. That's what winning the Presidency by a HUGE
popular vote margin AND increasing our lead in the Senate MEANS, you see.
Besides, Kerry PLEDGED that HE would apply a strict litmus test concerning
abortion for HIS Supreme Court nominees, and NONE of you ***** *****
Democrats voiced a peep of complaint when KERRY said that.
So a big ***** YOU, sir.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert R." |
|
| Title: Re: we can pack the Supreme Court with pro-life judges |
03 Nov 2004 07:49:54 PM |
|
|
"Bush 324 - Kerry 165" <FlushedJohn@DemsBite.com> wrote in message news:<6F6id.16006$KJ6.15585@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
"Winston Smith, American Patriot" <FranzKafka@Oceania.WhiteHouse.GOV> wrote
in message news:Xns9596AC8A832C3WSAP1960@64.164.98.6...
"Bush 324 - Kerry 165" <FlushJohns@DemsSux.com> wrote in
news:C96id.1163$Gm6.1106@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:
We've got one sicky already who may not even be alive 6 months from
now.
That "sicky" is one of yours, you dumfuk right winger.
America spoke, in ONE voice. and they said, "***** Kerry, ***** Socialist
Democrats, and ***** YOU!"
There is NOTHING to prevent us from packing the Supreme Court with
appointees of OUR choice. That's what winning the Presidency by a HUGE
popular vote margin
Since when is 51%-48% a huge margin?
AND increasing our lead in the Senate MEANS, you see.
Unfortunately for you, it didn't increase it to sixty, which is
necessary to cut off a filibuster. Which is precisely what you're
going to get if Bush nominates some knuckle-dragging Bible thumper.
Robert R.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bush 324 - Kerry 165" |
|
| Title: Re: we can pack the Supreme Court with pro-life judges |
03 Nov 2004 08:03:06 PM |
|
|
"Robert R." <robertr1234@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d6295449.0411031749.7c3fd113@posting.google.com...
"Bush 324 - Kerry 165" <FlushedJohn@DemsBite.com> wrote in message
news:<6F6id.16006$KJ6.15585@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
"Winston Smith, American Patriot" <FranzKafka@Oceania.WhiteHouse.GOV>
wrote
in message news:Xns9596AC8A832C3WSAP1960@64.164.98.6...
"Bush 324 - Kerry 165" <FlushJohns@DemsSux.com> wrote in
news:C96id.1163$Gm6.1106@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:
We've got one sicky already who may not even be alive 6 months from
now.
That "sicky" is one of yours, you dumfuk right winger.
America spoke, in ONE voice. and they said, "***** Kerry, ***** Socialist
Democrats, and ***** YOU!"
There is NOTHING to prevent us from packing the Supreme Court with
appointees of OUR choice. That's what winning the Presidency by a HUGE
popular vote margin
Since when is 51%-48% a huge margin?
Since it was THE largest Popular Vote that ANY American president has EVER
received.
Thanks for asking, demmie......
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: we can pack the Supreme Court with pro-life judges |
03 Nov 2004 11:48:15 PM |
|
|
In alt.politics.usa Bush 324 - Kerry 165 <FlushedJohn@demsbite.com> wrote:
"Robert R." <robertr1234@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d6295449.0411031749.7c3fd113@posting.google.com...
Since when is 51%-48% a huge margin?
Since it was THE largest Popular Vote that ANY American president has EVER
received.
You seem to be really hyped up on the fact that more people voted for
Bush than any other president in history.
Of course more people voted AGAINST Bush than any other presidential
candidate in history too....
--
That's News To Me!
newstome@comcast.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: we can pack the Supreme Court with pro-life judges |
03 Nov 2004 08:36:40 PM |
|
|
"Robert R." <robertr1234@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d6295449.0411031749.7c3fd113@posting.google.com...
"Bush 324 - Kerry 165" <FlushedJohn@DemsBite.com> wrote in message
news:<6F6id.16006$KJ6.15585@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
"Winston Smith, American Patriot" <FranzKafka@Oceania.WhiteHouse.GOV> wrote
in message news:Xns9596AC8A832C3WSAP1960@64.164.98.6...
"Bush 324 - Kerry 165" <FlushJohns@DemsSux.com> wrote in
news:C96id.1163$Gm6.1106@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:
We've got one sicky already who may not even be alive 6 months from
now.
That "sicky" is one of yours, you dumfuk right winger.
America spoke, in ONE voice. and they said, "***** Kerry, ***** Socialist
Democrats, and ***** YOU!"
There is NOTHING to prevent us from packing the Supreme Court with
appointees of OUR choice. That's what winning the Presidency by a HUGE
popular vote margin
Since when is 51%-48% a huge margin?
Won popular vote.
Won electoral vote.
First majority president since 1988.
Increased majority in Senate.
Increased majority in House of Representatives.
Majority of Governorships.
Defeated Democratic Senate leader.
That's quite impressive, actually.
AND increasing our lead in the Senate MEANS, you see.
Unfortunately for you, it didn't increase it to sixty, which is
necessary to cut off a filibuster. Which is precisely what you're
going to get if Bush nominates some knuckle-dragging Bible thumper.
All I want to see is a nomination of someone
who interprets current law, and leaves
making of new law to the legislature.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Foolcow" |
|
| Title: Re: we can pack the Supreme Court with pro-life judges |
04 Nov 2004 05:00:15 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 17:49:54 -0800, Robert R. wrote:
"Bush 324 - Kerry 165" <FlushedJohn@DemsBite.com> wrote in message news:<6F6id.16006$KJ6.15585@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
"Winston Smith, American Patriot" <FranzKafka@Oceania.WhiteHouse.GOV> wrote
in message news:Xns9596AC8A832C3WSAP1960@64.164.98.6...
"Bush 324 - Kerry 165" <FlushJohns@DemsSux.com> wrote in
news:C96id.1163$Gm6.1106@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:
We've got one sicky already who may not even be alive 6 months from
now.
That "sicky" is one of yours, you dumfuk right winger.
America spoke, in ONE voice. and they said, "***** Kerry, ***** Socialist
Democrats, and ***** YOU!"
There is NOTHING to prevent us from packing the Supreme Court with
appointees of OUR choice. That's what winning the Presidency by a HUGE
popular vote margin
Since when is 51%-48% a huge margin?
AND increasing our lead in the Senate MEANS, you see.
Unfortunately for you, it didn't increase it to sixty, which is
necessary to cut off a filibuster. Which is precisely what you're
going to get if Bush nominates some knuckle-dragging Bible thumper.
Robert R.
It is only by tradition that 60 votes are required to bring debate to a
close; there is nothing in the Constitution about a "filibuster" power.
The Senate, by majority vote, makes its own procedural rules.
Filibuster of presidential appointments is unprecedented; the Republican
Senators will almost certainly suspend that rule when the next batch of
judicial nominees is sent to them, if the Dems try filibustering again.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Winston Smith, American Patriot" |
|
| Title: Re: we can pack the Supreme Court with pro-life judges |
04 Nov 2004 05:11:55 AM |
|
|
Foolcow <foolcow@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:pan.2004.11.04.11.01.08.318923@yahoo.com:
On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 17:49:54 -0800, Robert R. wrote:
"Bush 324 - Kerry 165" <FlushedJohn@DemsBite.com> wrote in message
news:<6F6id.16006$KJ6.15585@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
"Winston Smith, American Patriot"
<FranzKafka@Oceania.WhiteHouse.GOV> wrote in message
news:Xns9596AC8A832C3WSAP1960@64.164.98.6...
"Bush 324 - Kerry 165" <FlushJohns@DemsSux.com> wrote in
news:C96id.1163$Gm6.1106@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:
We've got one sicky already who may not even be alive 6 months
from now.
That "sicky" is one of yours, you dumfuk right winger.
America spoke, in ONE voice. and they said, "***** Kerry, *****
Socialist Democrats, and ***** YOU!"
There is NOTHING to prevent us from packing the Supreme Court with
appointees of OUR choice. That's what winning the Presidency by a
HUGE popular vote margin
Since when is 51%-48% a huge margin?
AND increasing our lead in the Senate MEANS, you see.
Unfortunately for you, it didn't increase it to sixty, which is
necessary to cut off a filibuster. Which is precisely what you're
going to get if Bush nominates some knuckle-dragging Bible thumper.
Robert R.
It is only by tradition that 60 votes are required to bring debate to
a close; there is nothing in the Constitution about a "filibuster"
power. The Senate, by majority vote, makes its own procedural rules.
Filibuster of presidential appointments is unprecedented; the
Republican Senators will almost certainly suspend that rule when the
next batch of judicial nominees is sent to them, if the Dems try
filibustering again.
There will be no "suspension" of the filibuster. If the Republicans get
rid of it at the start of the next session, it's gone for good.
After all, you don't really believe that the Democrats are going to
reinstitute the filibuster if they somehow regain the majority in the
Senate and have less than 60 party members, do you???
In for a dime, in for a dollar.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Foolcow" |
|
| Title: Re: we can pack the Supreme Court with pro-life judges |
04 Nov 2004 05:20:36 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 11:11:55 +0000, Winston Smith, American Patriot wrote:
Foolcow <foolcow@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:pan.2004.11.04.11.01.08.318923@yahoo.com:
On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 17:49:54 -0800, Robert R. wrote:
"Bush 324 - Kerry 165" <FlushedJohn@DemsBite.com> wrote in message
news:<6F6id.16006$KJ6.15585@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
"Winston Smith, American Patriot"
<FranzKafka@Oceania.WhiteHouse.GOV> wrote in message
news:Xns9596AC8A832C3WSAP1960@64.164.98.6...
"Bush 324 - Kerry 165" <FlushJohns@DemsSux.com> wrote in
news:C96id.1163$Gm6.1106@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:
We've got one sicky already who may not even be alive 6 months
from now.
That "sicky" is one of yours, you dumfuk right winger.
America spoke, in ONE voice. and they said, "***** Kerry, *****
Socialist Democrats, and ***** YOU!"
There is NOTHING to prevent us from packing the Supreme Court with
appointees of OUR choice. That's what winning the Presidency by a
HUGE popular vote margin
Since when is 51%-48% a huge margin?
AND increasing our lead in the Senate MEANS, you see.
Unfortunately for you, it didn't increase it to sixty, which is
necessary to cut off a filibuster. Which is precisely what you're
going to get if Bush nominates some knuckle-dragging Bible thumper.
Robert R.
It is only by tradition that 60 votes are required to bring debate to
a close; there is nothing in the Constitution about a "filibuster"
power. The Senate, by majority vote, makes its own procedural rules.
Filibuster of presidential appointments is unprecedented; the
Republican Senators will almost certainly suspend that rule when the
next batch of judicial nominees is sent to them, if the Dems try
filibustering again.
There will be no "suspension" of the filibuster. If the Republicans get
rid of it at the start of the next session, it's gone for good.
After all, you don't really believe that the Democrats are going to
reinstitute the filibuster if they somehow regain the majority in the
Senate and have less than 60 party members, do you???
In for a dime, in for a dollar.
I didn't say they would get rid of it. I said they would suspend it when
voting on judicial appointments. This means that 41 senators could still
filibuster legislation, same as they've always done.
If the Democrats retaliate in kind, it will have no effect whatsoever,
since Republicans have never filibustered Democratic judicial nominees
anyway.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Winston Smith, American Patriot" |
|
| Title: Re: we can pack the Supreme Court with pro-life judges |
04 Nov 2004 06:29:04 AM |
|
|
Foolcow <foolcow@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:pan.2004.11.04.11.21.34.262297@yahoo.com:
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 11:11:55 +0000, Winston Smith, American Patriot
wrote:
Foolcow <foolcow@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:pan.2004.11.04.11.01.08.318923@yahoo.com:
On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 17:49:54 -0800, Robert R. wrote:
"Bush 324 - Kerry 165" <FlushedJohn@DemsBite.com> wrote in message
news:<6F6id.16006$KJ6.15585@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
"Winston Smith, American Patriot"
<FranzKafka@Oceania.WhiteHouse.GOV> wrote in message
news:Xns9596AC8A832C3WSAP1960@64.164.98.6...
"Bush 324 - Kerry 165" <FlushJohns@DemsSux.com> wrote in
news:C96id.1163$Gm6.1106@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:
We've got one sicky already who may not even be alive 6 months
from now.
That "sicky" is one of yours, you dumfuk right winger.
America spoke, in ONE voice. and they said, "***** Kerry, *****
Socialist Democrats, and ***** YOU!"
There is NOTHING to prevent us from packing the Supreme Court with
appointees of OUR choice. That's what winning the Presidency by a
HUGE popular vote margin
Since when is 51%-48% a huge margin?
AND increasing our lead in the Senate MEANS, you see.
Unfortunately for you, it didn't increase it to sixty, which is
necessary to cut off a filibuster. Which is precisely what you're
going to get if Bush nominates some knuckle-dragging Bible thumper.
Robert R.
It is only by tradition that 60 votes are required to bring debate
to a close; there is nothing in the Constitution about a
"filibuster" power. The Senate, by majority vote, makes its own
procedural rules.
Filibuster of presidential appointments is unprecedented; the
Republican Senators will almost certainly suspend that rule when the
next batch of judicial nominees is sent to them, if the Dems try
filibustering again.
There will be no "suspension" of the filibuster. If the Republicans
get rid of it at the start of the next session, it's gone for good.
After all, you don't really believe that the Democrats are going to
reinstitute the filibuster if they somehow regain the majority in the
Senate and have less than 60 party members, do you???
In for a dime, in for a dollar.
I didn't say they would get rid of it. I said they would suspend it
when voting on judicial appointments. This means that 41 senators
could still filibuster legislation, same as they've always done.
If the Democrats retaliate in kind, it will have no effect whatsoever,
since Republicans have never filibustered Democratic judicial nominees
anyway.
Not true. In 1968, I believe the Republicans were the FIRST to use the
filibuster to prevent the appointment of Abe Fortas as chief justice.
LBJ was president in 1968.
The Republicans are usually the first to do underhanded, dastardly things
in our era.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bush 324 - Kerry 165" |
|
| Title: Re: we can pack the Supreme Court with pro-life judges |
04 Nov 2004 06:50:18 AM |
|
|
"Winston Smith, American Patriot" <FranzKafka@Oceania.WhiteHouse.GOV> wrote
in message news:Xns9597935F5F221WSAP1960@64.164.98.6...
Foolcow <foolcow@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:pan.2004.11.04.11.21.34.262297@yahoo.com:
If the Democrats retaliate in kind, it will have no effect whatsoever,
since Republicans have never filibustered Democratic judicial nominees
anyway.
Not true. In 1968, I believe the Republicans were the FIRST to use the
filibuster to prevent the appointment of Abe Fortas as chief justice.
LBJ was president in 1968.
The Republicans are usually the first to do underhanded, dastardly things
in our era.
I think one of the issues that caused the Democrats to fall even FARTHER
behind the Republicans in the number of seats held in both the House and the
Senate was the obstructionism that the Democrats practiced over these past
four years.
What you appear to be proposing is for the Democrats to CONTINUE being
obstructionist. Not only does that fly in the face of what John Kerry
implored yesterday that you Democrats CEASE doing, it also invites even
FURTHER losses by you Democrats in the 2006 races.
Doesn't sound like a "winning strategy" on your part, but hey, you Democrats
are free to do whatever you feel is going to allow you to "win elections".
But I would suggest to you that the tactics you demmies have been employing
for the last few election cycles obviously is NOT working. Perhaps those
same tactics will somehow "begin working" in the future, but I seriously
doubt it.
It's kind of like you demmies are simply unable to ever learn a damn thing
from your mistakes, isn't it Winston!
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: we can pack the Supreme Court with pro-life judges |
04 Nov 2004 08:47:48 AM |
|
|
In alt.politics.usa Bush 324 - Kerry 165 <FlushedJohn@demsbite.com> wrote:
"Winston Smith, American Patriot" <FranzKafka@Oceania.WhiteHouse.GOV> wrote
in message news:Xns9597935F5F221WSAP1960@64.164.98.6...
The Republicans are usually the first to do underhanded, dastardly things
in our era.
I think one of the issues that caused the Democrats to fall even FARTHER
behind the Republicans in the number of seats held in both the House and the
Senate was the obstructionism that the Democrats practiced over these past
four years.
Obstructionism? Are you kidding? The Democrats handed the Bush
administration just about everything they wanted on a silver platter.
You do realize that they approved a significantly HIGHER percentage of
Bush's nominations than the Republican Congress approved for Clinton,
right? Now *WHO* exactly is "obstructionist"?
--
That's News To Me!
newstome@comcast.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bush 324 - Kerry 165" |
|
| Title: Re: we can pack the Supreme Court with pro-life judges |
04 Nov 2004 02:30:08 PM |
|
|
<newstome@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:oirid.464028$mD.403453@attbi_s02...
In alt.politics.usa Bush 324 - Kerry 165 <FlushedJohn@demsbite.com> wrote:
"Winston Smith, American Patriot" <FranzKafka@Oceania.WhiteHouse.GOV>
wrote
in message news:Xns9597935F5F221WSAP1960@64.164.98.6...
The Republicans are usually the first to do underhanded, dastardly
things
in our era.
I think one of the issues that caused the Democrats to fall even FARTHER
behind the Republicans in the number of seats held in both the House and
the
Senate was the obstructionism that the Democrats practiced over these
past
four years.
Obstructionism? Are you kidding? The Democrats handed the Bush
administration just about everything they wanted on a silver platter.
You do realize that they approved a significantly HIGHER percentage of
Bush's nominations than the Republican Congress approved for Clinton,
right? Now *WHO* exactly is "obstructionist"?
The Democrats, as I said. They blocked the key nominations to the federal
appeals courts. Saying they approved most of the lower court nominations
means little.
But this time around the Republicans have a MUCH higher margin in the
Senate, so it will be much, much harder for the Demmies to play their
obstructionist game. Plus the Demmie Senators will be keeping in mind the
risk they take if they go obstructionist again, given the staggering losses
their party suffered this time.
----------------
Look for the George Soros T-shirt in a store near you. Comes in all the
usual sizes, and is a beautiful "Democrats Are Winners" blue. Has a
picture of Michael Moore eating a double cheeseburger on the front, and has
the following text on the back:
"I spent $27 million dollars of my own savings, and all I got was a Kerry
Defeat and this lousy T-shirt!"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "T.Carr" |
|
| Title: Re: we can pack the Supreme Court with pro-life judges |
04 Nov 2004 04:47:36 PM |
|
|
"Winston Smith, American Patriot" <FranzKafka@Oceania.WhiteHouse.GOV> wrote in message news:<Xns9597935F5F221WSAP1960@64.164.98.6>...
Foolcow <foolcow@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:pan.2004.11.04.11.21.34.262297@yahoo.com:
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 11:11:55 +0000, Winston Smith, American Patriot
wrote:
Foolcow <foolcow@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:pan.2004.11.04.11.01.08.318923@yahoo.com:
On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 17:49:54 -0800, Robert R. wrote:
"Bush 324 - Kerry 165" <FlushedJohn@DemsBite.com> wrote in message
news:<6F6id.16006$KJ6.15585@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
"Winston Smith, American Patriot"
<FranzKafka@Oceania.WhiteHouse.GOV> wrote in message
news:Xns9596AC8A832C3WSAP1960@64.164.98.6...
"Bush 324 - Kerry 165" <FlushJohns@DemsSux.com> wrote in
news:C96id.1163$Gm6.1106@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:
We've got one sicky already who may not even be alive 6 months
from now.
That "sicky" is one of yours, you dumfuk right winger.
America spoke, in ONE voice. and they said, "***** Kerry, *****
Socialist Democrats, and ***** YOU!"
There is NOTHING to prevent us from packing the Supreme Court with
appointees of OUR choice. That's what winning the Presidency by a
HUGE popular vote margin
Since when is 51%-48% a huge margin?
AND increasing our lead in the Senate MEANS, you see.
Unfortunately for you, it didn't increase it to sixty, which is
necessary to cut off a filibuster. Which is precisely what you're
going to get if Bush nominates some knuckle-dragging Bible thumper.
Robert R.
It is only by tradition that 60 votes are required to bring debate
to a close; there is nothing in the Constitution about a
"filibuster" power. The Senate, by majority vote, makes its own
procedural rules.
Filibuster of presidential appointments is unprecedented; the
Republican Senators will almost certainly suspend that rule when the
next batch of judicial nominees is sent to them, if the Dems try
filibustering again.
There will be no "suspension" of the filibuster. If the Republicans
get rid of it at the start of the next session, it's gone for good.
After all, you don't really believe that the Democrats are going to
reinstitute the filibuster if they somehow regain the majority in the
Senate and have less than 60 party members, do you???
In for a dime, in for a dollar.
I didn't say they would get rid of it. I said they would suspend it
when voting on judicial appointments. This means that 41 senators
could still filibuster legislation, same as they've always done.
If the Democrats retaliate in kind, it will have no effect whatsoever,
since Republicans have never filibustered Democratic judicial nominees
anyway.
Winston Smith, American Patriot
Not true. In 1968, I believe the Republicans were the FIRST to use the
filibuster to prevent the appointment of Abe Fortas as chief justice.
LBJ was president in 1968.
Fortas was already on the SCOTUS
"Fortas became the first sitting associate justice, nominated for
chief justice, to testify at his own confirmation hearing. Those
hearings reinforced what some senators already knew about the nominee"
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Filibuster_Derails_Supreme_Court_Appointment.htm
The Republicans are usually the first to do underhanded, dastardly things
in our era.
Tell us again when the GOP filibustered a appointment to the federal
judiciary Mr "patriot"
T.Carr
.
|
|
|
| User: "Winston Smith, American Patriot" |
|
| Title: Re: we can pack the Supreme Court with pro-life judges |
05 Nov 2004 01:14:02 AM |
|
|
(T.Carr) wrote in
news:c7ddae2f.0411041447.3029389d@posting.google.com:
"Winston Smith, American Patriot" <FranzKafka@Oceania.WhiteHouse.GOV>
wrote in message news:<Xns9597935F5F221WSAP1960@64.164.98.6>...
Foolcow <foolcow@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:pan.2004.11.04.11.21.34.262297@yahoo.com:
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 11:11:55 +0000, Winston Smith, American Patriot
wrote:
Foolcow <foolcow@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:pan.2004.11.04.11.01.08.318923@yahoo.com:
On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 17:49:54 -0800, Robert R. wrote:
"Bush 324 - Kerry 165" <FlushedJohn@DemsBite.com> wrote in
message
news:<6F6id.16006$KJ6.15585@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
"Winston Smith, American Patriot"
<FranzKafka@Oceania.WhiteHouse.GOV> wrote in message
news:Xns9596AC8A832C3WSAP1960@64.164.98.6...
"Bush 324 - Kerry 165" <FlushJohns@DemsSux.com> wrote in
news:C96id.1163$Gm6.1106@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:
We've got one sicky already who may not even be alive 6
months from now.
That "sicky" is one of yours, you dumfuk right winger.
America spoke, in ONE voice. and they said, "***** Kerry, *****
Socialist Democrats, and ***** YOU!"
There is NOTHING to prevent us from packing the Supreme Court
with appointees of OUR choice. That's what winning the
Presidency by a HUGE popular vote margin
Since when is 51%-48% a huge margin?
AND increasing our lead in the Senate MEANS, you see.
Unfortunately for you, it didn't increase it to sixty, which is
necessary to cut off a filibuster. Which is precisely what
you're going to get if Bush nominates some knuckle-dragging
Bible thumper.
Robert R.
It is only by tradition that 60 votes are required to bring
debate to a close; there is nothing in the Constitution about a
"filibuster" power. The Senate, by majority vote, makes its own
procedural rules.
Filibuster of presidential appointments is unprecedented; the
Republican Senators will almost certainly suspend that rule when
the next batch of judicial nominees is sent to them, if the Dems
try filibustering again.
There will be no "suspension" of the filibuster. If the
Republicans get rid of it at the start of the next session, it's
gone for good.
After all, you don't really believe that the Democrats are going
to reinstitute the filibuster if they somehow regain the majority
in the Senate and have less than 60 party members, do you???
In for a dime, in for a dollar.
I didn't say they would get rid of it. I said they would suspend
it when voting on judicial appointments. This means that 41
senators could still filibuster legislation, same as they've always
done.
If the Democrats retaliate in kind, it will have no effect
whatsoever, since Republicans have never filibustered Democratic
judicial nominees anyway.
Winston Smith, American Patriot
Not true. In 1968, I believe the Republicans were the FIRST to use
the filibuster to prevent the appointment of Abe Fortas as chief
justice. LBJ was president in 1968.
Fortas was already on the SCOTUS
Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, I see.
Note the words "...to prevent the appointment of Abe Fortas as chief
justice."
That junior college education of yours is turning out to be a rather bad
investment, isn't it?
"Fortas became the first sitting associate justice, nominated for
chief justice, to testify at his own confirmation hearing. Those
hearings reinforced what some senators already knew about the nominee"
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Filibuster_Derails_
Supreme_Court_Appointment.htm
The Republicans are usually the first to do underhanded, dastardly
things in our era.
Tell us again when the GOP filibustered a appointment to the federal
judiciary Mr "patriot"
"There is also a clear history of bipartisan use of the filibuster with
regard to judicial nominations. Senate Republicans successfully
filibustered in1968 the nomination of Associate Justice Abe Fortas to be
Chief Justice of the United States."
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=11470
Tell me your address. I bet I can find a nice restaurant in your area
that serves crow on the menu for a good price.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris S." |
|
| Title: Re: we can pack the Supreme Court with pro-life judges |
03 Nov 2004 03:04:51 PM |
|
|
Bush 324 - Kerry 165 wrote:
America spoke, in ONE voice. and they said, "***** Kerry, ***** Socialist
Democrats, and ***** YOU!"
One voice? What does that even mean? In all fairness, the race was
extremely close, and if Ohio's vote had swung a few thousands votes the
other way, Bush would be packing his bags right now. There's no need to
be vulgar.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: we can pack the Supreme Court with pro-life judges |
03 Nov 2004 10:41:00 AM |
|
|
In alt.politics.usa Bush 324 - Kerry 165 <FlushedJohn@demsbite.com> wrote:
America spoke, in ONE voice. and they said, "***** Kerry, ***** Socialist
Democrats, and ***** YOU!"
You know, you deserve the right to gloat a little -- I certainly would
have if the election had come out the other way.
But if you think a 51-48 popular vote is "one voice" then you're
seriously deluded. There are TWO very strong voices out there -- The
nation is very, very split, and this is a big problem. I'll include
myself as being on one side of that split. I simply have no
comprehension of how anyone could experience the damage that this
administration has done to this country in the past 4 years and go
ahead and vote for Bush anyway. It's a completely foreign mindset to
me, and yet around half of the country apparently can support Bush
nonetheless. I also have no doubt that there are people on the other
side (including the one I'm responding to) that don't understand our
side, despite the fact that around half the nation agrees with me.
We'd be in this same bind no matter who won this election, and I can't
imagine that Kerry would have been able to bring the nation together.
I KNOW Bush can't, and will most likely polarize things even further.
So are we screwed, or what?
--
That's News To Me!
newstome@comcast.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Texas Ranger" |
|
| Title: Re: we can pack the Supreme Court with pro-life judges |
03 Nov 2004 10:59:40 AM |
|
|
<newstome@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:wS7id.564010$8_6.553076@attbi_s04...
In alt.politics.usa Bush 324 - Kerry 165 <FlushedJohn@demsbite.com> wrote:
America spoke, in ONE voice. and they said, "***** Kerry, ***** Socialist
Democrats, and ***** YOU!"
You know, you deserve the right to gloat a little -- I certainly would
have if the election had come out the other way.
God would never have allowed you evil democRATs to take the shine off this
great nation.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bush 324 - Kerry 165" |
|
| Title: Re: we can pack the Supreme Court with pro-life judges |
03 Nov 2004 11:15:43 AM |
|
|
<newstome@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:wS7id.564010$8_6.553076@attbi_s04...
In alt.politics.usa Bush 324 - Kerry 165 <FlushedJohn@demsbite.com> wrote:
America spoke, in ONE voice. and they said, "***** Kerry, ***** Socialist
Democrats, and ***** YOU!"
You know, you deserve the right to gloat a little -- I certainly would
have if the election had come out the other way.
But if you think a 51-48 popular vote is "one voice" then you're
seriously deluded. There are TWO very strong voices out there -- The
nation is very, very split, and this is a big problem. I'll include
myself as being on one side of that split. I simply have no
comprehension of how anyone could experience the damage that this
administration has done to this country in the past 4 years and go
ahead and vote for Bush anyway. It's a completely foreign mindset to
me, and yet around half of the country apparently can support Bush
nonetheless. I also have no doubt that there are people on the other
side (including the one I'm responding to) that don't understand our
side, despite the fact that around half the nation agrees with me.
We'd be in this same bind no matter who won this election, and I can't
imagine that Kerry would have been able to bring the nation together.
I KNOW Bush can't, and will most likely polarize things even further.
So are we screwed, or what?
Yes, you Demmies are screwed. You LOST the House, you LOST the Senate, you
LOST the presidency. You now have a SMALLER margin in the House, a SMALLER
margin in the Senate, and Bush won by a LARGER popular vote than ANY
American president has EVER received. And you LOST your Daschle, and you
lost EVERY ballot question concerning same-sex "marriage".
Yes, you Demmies are screwed. Royally.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Crazy Bastard" |
|
| Title: Re: we can pack the Supreme Court with pro-life judges |
03 Nov 2004 12:44:24 PM |
|
|
<newstome@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:wS7id.564010$8_6.553076@attbi_s04...
In alt.politics.usa Bush 324 - Kerry 165 <FlushedJohn@demsbite.com> wrote:
America spoke, in ONE voice. and they said, "***** Kerry, ***** Socialist
Democrats, and ***** YOU!"
You know, you deserve the right to gloat a little -- I certainly would
have if the election had come out the other way.
But if you think a 51-48 popular vote is "one voice" then you're
seriously deluded. There are TWO very strong voices out there -- The
nation is very, very split, and this is a big problem. I'll include
myself as being on one side of that split. I simply have no
comprehension of how anyone could experience the damage that this
administration has done to this country in the past 4 years and go
ahead and vote for Bush anyway.
What you call damage we call PROGRESS.
It's a completely foreign mindset to me....
A MORE foreign mindset awaits you...
So are we screwed, or what?
No, we are victorious.
You are asked to leave America. Whether or not that screws you is of
absolutely NO INTEREST to us.
Good luck.
Pack quickly.
Bye-bye.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Winston Smith, American Patriot" |
|
| Title: Re: we can pack the Supreme Court with pro-life judges |
03 Nov 2004 10:42:45 AM |
|
|
wrote in news:wS7id.564010$8_6.553076@attbi_s04:
In alt.politics.usa Bush 324 - Kerry 165 <FlushedJohn@demsbite.com>
wrote:
America spoke, in ONE voice. and they said, "***** Kerry, *****
Socialist Democrats, and ***** YOU!"
You know, you deserve the right to gloat a little -- I certainly would
have if the election had come out the other way.
But if you think a 51-48 popular vote is "one voice" then you're
seriously deluded. There are TWO very strong voices out there -- The
nation is very, very split, and this is a big problem. I'll include
myself as being on one side of that split. I simply have no
comprehension of how anyone could experience the damage that this
administration has done to this country in the past 4 years and go
ahead and vote for Bush anyway. It's a completely foreign mindset to
me, and yet around half of the country apparently can support Bush
nonetheless. I also have no doubt that there are people on the other
side (including the one I'm responding to) that don't understand our
side, despite the fact that around half the nation agrees with me.
Please tell me you did not just try to reason with a Bush-supporting
right winger!!
I say again:
Please tell me you did not just try to reason with a Bush-supporting
right winger!!
I REPEAT:
Please tell me you did not just try to reason with a Bush-supporting
right winger!!
We'd be in this same bind no matter who won this election, and I can't
imagine that Kerry would have been able to bring the nation together.
I KNOW Bush can't, and will most likely polarize things even further.
So are we screwed, or what?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Texas Ranger" |
|
| Title: Re: we can pack the Supreme Court with pro-life judges |
03 Nov 2004 10:58:46 AM |
|
|
"Winston Smith, American Patriot" <FranzKafka@Oceania.WhiteHouse.GOV> wrote
in message news:Xns9596BE620F5B9WSAP1960@64.164.98.6...
newstome@comcast.net wrote in news:wS7id.564010$8_6.553076@attbi_s04:
In alt.politics.usa Bush 324 - Kerry 165 <FlushedJohn@demsbite.com>
wrote:
America spoke, in ONE voice. and they said, "***** Kerry, *****
Socialist Democrats, and ***** YOU!"
You know, you deserve the right to gloat a little -- I certainly would
have if the election had come out the other way.
But if you think a 51-48 popular vote is "one voice" then you're
seriously deluded. There are TWO very strong voices out there -- The
nation is very, very split, and this is a big problem. I'll include
myself as being on one side of that split. I simply have no
comprehension of how anyone could experience the damage that this
administration has done to this country in the past 4 years and go
ahead and vote for Bush anyway. It's a completely foreign mindset to
me, and yet around half of the country apparently can support Bush
nonetheless. I also have no doubt that there are people on the other
side (including the one I'm responding to) that don't understand our
side, despite the fact that around half the nation agrees with me.
Please tell me you did not just try to reason with a Bush-supporting
right winger!!
I say again:
Please tell me you did not just try to reason with a Bush-supporting
right winger!!
I REPEAT:
Please tell me you did not just try to reason with a Bush-supporting
right winger!!
I see you need to keep repeating yourself to your liberal friends. They must
just be slow, eh - or Canadian?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Winston Smith, American Patriot" |
|
| Title: Re: we can pack the Supreme Court with pro-life judges |
03 Nov 2004 11:02:57 AM |
|
|
"Texas Ranger" <ranger@texas.com> wrote in
news:2ush24F2di0ftU1@uni-berlin.de:
"Winston Smith, American Patriot" <FranzKafka@Oceania.WhiteHouse.GOV>
wrote in message news:Xns9596BE620F5B9WSAP1960@64.164.98.6...
newstome@comcast.net wrote in news:wS7id.564010$8_6.553076@attbi_s04:
In alt.politics.usa Bush 324 - Kerry 165 <FlushedJohn@demsbite.com>
wrote:
America spoke, in ONE voice. and they said, "***** Kerry, *****
Socialist Democrats, and ***** YOU!"
You know, you deserve the right to gloat a little -- I certainly
would have if the election had come out the other way.
But if you think a 51-48 popular vote is "one voice" then you're
seriously deluded. There are TWO very strong voices out there --
The nation is very, very split, and this is a big problem. I'll
include myself as being on one side of that split. I simply have
no comprehension of how anyone could experience the damage that
this administration has done to this country in the past 4 years
and go ahead and vote for Bush anyway. It's a completely foreign
mindset to me, and yet around half of the country apparently can
support Bush nonetheless. I also have no doubt that there are
people on the other side (including the one I'm responding to) that
don't understand our side, despite the fact that around half the
nation agrees with me.
Please tell me you did not just try to reason with a Bush-supporting
right winger!!
I say again:
Please tell me you did not just try to reason with a Bush-supporting
right winger!!
I REPEAT:
Please tell me you did not just try to reason with a Bush-supporting
right winger!!
I see you need to keep repeating yourself to your liberal friends.
They must just be slow, eh - or Canadian?
I hope y'all get around to runnin' aht awl thuh reh-jeestirred Democrats
in Tex-*****.
Cuz then I won't have to lose any sleep when Osama explodes his dirty
nuke close to Crawford.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "OrionCA" |
|
| Title: Re: we can pack the Supreme Court with pro-life judges |
03 Nov 2004 12:00:03 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 16:41:00 GMT, wrote:
In alt.politics.usa Bush 324 - Kerry 165 <FlushedJohn@demsbite.com> wrote:
America spoke, in ONE voice. and they said, "***** Kerry, ***** Socialist
Democrats, and ***** YOU!"
You know, you deserve the right to gloat a little -- I certainly would
have if the election had come out the other way.
But if you think a 51-48 popular vote is "one voice" then you're
seriously deluded. There are TWO very strong voices out there -- The
nation is very, very split, and this is a big problem.
Not really. Angry partisans (aka, "you") rarely get over losing an
election and move on with your lives but you're in the distinct
minority even in the Democrat Party. Poll after poll showed over the
past 2 years that the "angry left" only comprised about 12% of the
Democrat base. Given that the next GOP candidate will not have
"stolen" an election from the Democrats (as you raved constantly about
Bush) even that number will shrink a bit.
Most Democrats voted for Kerry because he's a Democrat - period.
They're not particularly angry and they don't race out into the
streets and slash tires of cars with "Bush/Cheney" stickers on them;
they put politics behind them after Election Day.
Either party, in an election, has a base of 35% - 40% it can count on.
The campaign is always about that last 10%-15%.. Between elections
the parties' bases merge back into one amorphous group, called
AMERICANS, who don't identify themselves with a party label (or at
least not to any great extent).
After 9/11 Bush's approval rating almost tapped 90%; the only people
who disapproved of him were the far-left activists who NEVER approve
of any Republican president (and damned few Democrats, either!) Over
the next 4 years Americans will pull together, like they always do,
split into camps during the elections, and come back together
afterwards. It's our way; we save our revolutions for the ballot box.
I'll include
myself as being on one side of that split. I simply have no
comprehension of how anyone could experience the damage that this
administration has done to this country in the past 4 years and go
ahead and vote for Bush anyway. It's a completely foreign mindset to
me, and yet around half of the country apparently can support Bush
nonetheless. I also have no doubt that there are people on the other
side (including the one I'm responding to) that don't understand our
side, despite the fact that around half the nation agrees with me.
We'd be in this same bind no matter who won this election, and I can't
imagine that Kerry would have been able to bring the nation together.
I KNOW Bush can't, and will most likely polarize things even further.
So are we screwed, or what?
You are, but then your ilk always get screwed after the votes are
counted.
--
Paleontologists recently announced they have
discovered when Man first discovered language:
Just after he invented the hammer and nail.
And it was BAD language.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: we can pack the Supreme Court with pro-life judges |
03 Nov 2004 01:29:46 PM |
|
|
In alt.politics.usa OrionCA <OrionCA@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 16:41:00 GMT, wrote:
In alt.politics.usa Bush 324 - Kerry 165 <FlushedJohn@demsbite.com> wrote:
America spoke, in ONE voice. and they said, "***** Kerry, ***** Socialist
Democrats, and ***** YOU!"
You know, you deserve the right to gloat a little -- I certainly would
have if the election had come out the other way.
But if you think a 51-48 popular vote is "one voice" then you're
seriously deluded. There are TWO very strong voices out there -- The
nation is very, very split, and this is a big problem.
Not really. Angry partisans (aka, "you") rarely get over losing an
election and move on with your lives but you're in the distinct
minority even in the Democrat Party.
Thank you for providing an excellent example of what I was talking
about when I said the two sides don't really understand each other.
You clearly don't understand me at all -- I'm not an "angry partisan",
and am quite a mainstream Democrat.
Poll after poll showed over the
past 2 years that the "angry left" only comprised about 12% of the
Democrat base. Given that the next GOP candidate will not have
"stolen" an election from the Democrats (as you raved constantly about
Bush) even that number will shrink a bit.
I raved about that? Really? Musta missed that.
Most Democrats voted for Kerry because he's a Democrat - period.
They're not particularly angry and they don't race out into the
streets and slash tires of cars with "Bush/Cheney" stickers on them;
they put politics behind them after Election Day.
Either party, in an election, has a base of 35% - 40% it can count on.
The campaign is always about that last 10%-15%.. Between elections
the parties' bases merge back into one amorphous group, called
AMERICANS, who don't identify themselves with a party label (or at
least not to any great extent).
You're more optimistic about that than I am. The past two
administrations (Clinton and Bush) have seen more sniping and fighting
between elections than any others that I've seen. I'd like to think
that we can all work together toward common goals now, but I just
don't see that happening.
--
That's News To Me!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bush 324 - Kerry 165" |
|
| Title: Re: we can pack the Supreme Court with pro-life judges |
03 Nov 2004 01:42:58 PM |
|
|
<> wrote in message
news:Kkaid.351227$MQ5.90335@attbi_s52...
In alt.politics.usa OrionCA <OrionCA@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 16:41:00 GMT, wrote:
In alt.politics.usa Bush 324 - Kerry 165 <FlushedJohn@demsbite.com>
wrote:
America spoke, in ONE voice. and they said, "***** Kerry, ***** Socialist
Democrats, and ***** YOU!"
You know, you deserve the right to gloat a little -- I certainly would
have if the election had come out the other way.
But if you think a 51-48 popular vote is "one voice" then you're
seriously deluded. There are TWO very strong voices out there -- The
nation is very, very split, and this is a big problem.
Not really. Angry partisans (aka, "you") rarely get over losing an
election and move on with your lives but you're in the distinct
minority even in the Democrat Party.
Thank you for providing an excellent example of what I was talking
about when I said the two sides don't really understand each other.
You clearly don't understand me at all -- I'm not an "angry partisan",
and am quite a mainstream Democrat.
You just don't get it yet. You self-styled "mainstream Democrats" are the
MINORITY.
What you "mainstream Democrats" refer to as "right wingers" are the
MAJORITY.
As such, we have the RIGHT to pack the Supreme Court with judges who will
INTERPRET the Constitution as WE see fit.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris S." |
|
| Title: Re: we can pack the Supreme Court with pro-life judges |
03 Nov 2004 03:13:45 PM |
|
|
Bush 324 - Kerry 165 wrote:
As such, we have the RIGHT to pack the Supreme Court with judges who will
INTERPRET the Constitution as WE see fit.
A majority of Americans once supported segregation. We tend to evolve
past these primitive, narrow-minded perspectives.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bush 324 - Kerry 165" |
|
| Title: Re: we can pack the Supreme Court with pro-life judges |
03 Nov 2004 03:46:29 PM |
|
|
"Chris S." <chrisks@NOSPAM.udel.edu> wrote in message
news:dSbid.271$Zb3.11@trndny07...
Bush 324 - Kerry 165 wrote:
As such, we have the RIGHT to pack the Supreme Court with judges who will
INTERPRET the Constitution as WE see fit.
A majority of Americans once supported segregation. We tend to evolve past
these primitive, narrow-minded perspectives.
Which is why we need to evolve past the primitive, narrow-minded Roe v. Wade
ruling.
.
|
|
|
| User: "peeps" |
|
| Title: Re: we can pack the Supreme Court with pro-life judges |
03 Nov 2004 04:00:02 PM |
|
|
dont waste too much of your breath, the democrats are all
about doom n gloom and how bad their pathetic lives are, and
how they can blame all their troubles on the government.
They are, a lost party, and a lost cause..
"Bush 324 - Kerry 165" <FlushedJohn@DemsBite.com> wrote in message
news:Vkcid.1614$Gm6.1276@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Chris S." <chrisks@NOSPAM.udel.edu> wrote in message
news:dSbid.271$Zb3.11@trndny07...
Bush 324 - Kerry 165 wrote:
As such, we have the RIGHT to pack the Supreme Court with judges who
will
INTERPRET the Constitution as WE see fit.
A majority of Americans once supported segregation. We tend to evolve
past
these primitive, narrow-minded perspectives.
Which is why we need to evolve past the primitive, narrow-minded Roe v.
Wade
ruling.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bush 324 - Kerry 165" |
|
| Title: Re: we can pack the Supreme Court with pro-life judges |
03 Nov 2004 04:25:48 PM |
|
|
I'm not wasting my time much more with a whole bunch of the loonier ones
among them. I warned them, right in these newsgroups, for weeks and weeks,
that Bush was gonna win this one. I told them last night that ALL the polls
showed Bush winning by a 3-point margin, which is EXACTLY what he did. I
even told them that a LARGE voter turnout would benefit Bush and HURT Kerry,
which is EXACTLY what happened. For informing them of those FACTS, they
rewarded me with various profanities, personal attacks, and insults.
This is the second MAJOR election loss (a loss of the presidency) by the
clown Democrats. They CONTINUE falling farther and farther behind in both
the House and the Senate. They have been warned about this for YEARS now.
They just don't listen, and their arrogant, self-righteous pride prevents
them from doing so, apparently.
So ***** 'em.
There is really no need any longer to DEBATE any of these issues with those
clowns, because our margin is now overpowering in the federal government.
We can load the Supreme Court with justices of our choosing.
The burden of proof lay with them, and they refused to provide the proof of
Kerry's worth. So he was rejected. It is THEY who must begin to
compromise, to reach out to US, the MAJORITY, and NOT the other way around.
Accordingly, I shall begin FREELY plonking those Demmie assclowns in these
newsgroups, as soon as they indicate they are being unreasonable and moronic
with their claims. If they don't want to engage in reasonable debate, then
***** 'em, is my attitude at this point.
"peeps" <peeps@peeps.net> wrote in message
news:Bxcid.460048$mD.100751@attbi_s02...
dont waste too much of your breath, the democrats are all
about doom n gloom and how bad their pathetic lives are, and
how they can blame all their troubles on the government.
They are, a lost party, and a lost cause..
"Bush 324 - Kerry 165" <FlushedJohn@DemsBite.com> wrote in message
news:Vkcid.1614$Gm6.1276@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Chris S." <chrisks@NOSPAM.udel.edu> wrote in message
news:dSbid.271$Zb3.11@trndny07...
Bush 324 - Kerry 165 wrote:
As such, we have the RIGHT to pack the Supreme Court with judges who
will
INTERPRET the Constitution as WE see fit.
A majority of Americans once supported segregation. We tend to evolve
past
these primitive, narrow-minded perspectives.
Which is why we need to evolve past the primitive, narrow-minded Roe v.
Wade
ruling.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
