Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Senate Democrats Whine Too Much  
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1188 times:

He said "bubbling just below the surface was a lot of frustration" at the Roberts confirmation hearing, in which the conservative appeals court judge refused to say how he would rule on certain important legal cases like abortion rights.

After having told their own more liberal candidate judges (like Ginsberg) that they did not have to answer such questions, this is open hypocracy.

"He did not elaborate, but Democrats are worried about a number of conservatives on Bush's list because while Roberts replacing the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist is swapping a conservative with a conservative, O'Connor has been a more moderate, swing vote on the court.

The president can nominate anyone he wants. He can nominate the ghost of Ronald Reagan, if that is his inclination. The senate's job is simply to vote yes or no. So they should shut up and do their jobs, without threats of filibustering or any undemocratic crap like that.

And one more thing - The dems demand that Bush nominate another moderate to replace O'Conner. But does anyone believe that the dems would lift a single finger to nominate anything but a revisionist like Ginsberg if they had the presidency and a majority in the senate? Hell no, they would not!

They had their 8 years during Clinton, and they may well have their turn again after 2008. They might also get control of the Senate in 2006, forcing Bush to nominate at the very least a moderate if another vacancy appears. They should be quiet and wait their turn, and republicans should ignore their opinion as long as they have the votes.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050921/pl_nm/bush_court_dc

Charles

76 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineTriStarEnvy From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2265 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1181 times:

Great post but hope you have on flame retardant shorts....


If you don't stand for SOMETHING, you'll fall for ANYTHING.
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20822 posts, RR: 62
Reply 2, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1174 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Thread starter):
After having told their own more liberal candidate judges (like Ginsberg) that they did not have to answer such questions, this is open hypocracy.

If you go back and read Ginsberg's testimony, and Biden's quotes, Ginsberg DID testify about cases on which she'd ruled.

The problem is that Roberts has so little judicial background combined with being nominated for the highest judicial post in the U.S.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineJake056 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 291 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1162 times:

You are absolutely right. No one can deny that Judge Roberts is extremely well qualified to sit on the Court, and for Harry Reid to vote against him because of his supposed "concerns" re: civil rights, etc. is ludicrous. It smacks of pure politics. NO nominee discusses their views during the confirmation process.

If Judge Roberts is not qualified in Sen. Reid's mind, then who is? Some dope from the 9th Circuit that voted that the Pledge is unconstitutional??

Judge Ruth was confirmed by the Senate 96-3. The republicans KNEW her views were liberal, (she had been general counsel for the ACLU) but since she was otherwise qualified, they voted for her. That is the way the system is supposed to work.

Too bad Harry Reid is so beholden to special interest groups that he can't do the right thing and vote for Roberts.


User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 1151 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Thread starter):
does anyone believe that the dems would lift a single finger to nominate anything but a revisionist like Ginsberg if they had the presidency and a majority in the senate? Hell no, they would not!

You're the whiner.

And you don't know what revisionist means.

And I have responded to your earlier incorrect comments on Ginsberg's legal record prior to her confirmation, the process by which she was confirmed, and the fact that 5 out of 6 decisions she argued in front of a conservative Supreme Court became the law of the land. You choose to ignore facts and wallow in the nonsense propaganda you read to fuel your deeply held views.

Clearly, in your case, the old adage rings true. You can take a donkey to water, but you can't make him drink.


User currently offlineDvk From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1058 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 1149 times:

Quoting Jake056 (Reply 3):
You are absolutely right. No one can deny that Judge Roberts is extremely well qualified to sit on the Court, and for Harry Reid to vote against him because of his supposed "concerns" re: civil rights, etc. is ludicrous. It smacks of pure politics.

Right. Bush's nominees are to be confirmed 100-0, according to your reasoning. Reid has every right to vote however he feels. He also stated that, while he would vote against Roberts, he didn't see any reason for the Dems to attempt to block Senate confirmation. "Smacks of pure politics"? Give us a break. You're trying awfully hard to be a sore winner.



I'm not dumb. I just have a command of thoroughly useless information.
User currently offlineWellHung From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 1148 times:

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 4):
You're the whiner.

+1


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20822 posts, RR: 62
Reply 7, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 1145 times:

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 4):
You can take a donkey to water, but you can't make him drink.

... unless the trough is filled with Kool-Aid.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineIADBGO From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 206 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 1141 times:

[url=http://hnn.us/articles/13357.html]

When you look at who voted against Ginsburg, and for what reasons you would see that what Sen Reid is doing is NO different. Sen Helms voted against Ginsburg because she was "pushing the homosexual agenda". She didn't say anything about homosexuals during the hearing...Helms just didn't like her politics. Sen Nichols is known as one of the most conservative Senators. Ginsburg did say flat out, women have the right to chose...she did not believe that there would be a case that would challenge that basic idea...and there has not been a case to challenge that basic idea before the court in the last decade. There have been cases on parts of abortion issues...but not the fundamental one.

She answered some questions...and did not answer others...Roberts did the same thing. I don't have a problem with how Roberts answered...Reid is going to be in the minority on this vote...he just doesn't want to lose face with the left and wants to show that he will fight over the next nominee.

IADBGO


User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 1135 times:

Quoting Dvk (Reply 5):
Right. Bush's nominees are to be confirmed 100-0, according to your reasoning. Reid has every right to vote however he feels. He also stated that, while he would vote against Roberts, he didn't see any reason for the Dems to attempt to block Senate confirmation. "Smacks of pure politics"? Give us a break. You're trying awfully hard to be a sore winner.

Reid has the right to vote the way he feels. However, The Washington Post warns in their lead editorial today that the democrats are traveling down a dangerous path. Note how the republicans treated Clinton's nominees....

Words That Will Haunt

Wednesday, September 21, 2005; Page A22
IN ANNOUNCING his opposition yesterday to the nomination of Judge John G. Roberts Jr. to be chief justice of the United States, Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) made a remarkable statement: "The president is not entitled to very much deference in staffing the third branch of government, the judiciary." Leave aside the merits of the Roberts nomination, which we support; if Mr. Reid regards Judge Roberts as unworthy, he is duty-bound to vote against him. But these are dangerous words that Democrats will come to regret.

This country has only one president at a time. That president, right now President Bush, is tasked with naming judges. The Senate has the role of providing advice and consent on the president's choices, which is a significant constitutional task. But if the presidential election means anything in this arena, it must mean that the president's choice has a heavy presumption of confirmation. That is the way the system works. Why else would Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Stephen G. Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg have received only a handful of no-votes among them? During the Clinton administration, we deplored the way that the Senate treated the president's judicial nominees during six years of Republican control over the Senate. Yet during those six years, the Senate confirmed 245 of President Bill Clinton's judges. If Republicans had been applying Mr. Reid's standard, they would have been within their rights to reject them all.

Do Democrats really want the American confirmation system to move in that direction? Republicans may still be in the majority the next time a Democratic president nominates a justice. Is it now okay for them to vote against a person who -- as Mr. Reid put it of Judge Roberts -- is "an excellent lawyer" and "a thoughtful, mainstream judge" who may make "a fine Supreme Court justice" simply because the nominee doesn't represent their ideal? When that day comes, and Democrats cry foul, remember what Mr. Reid said about how little deference he believes he owes Mr. Bush concerning Judge Roberts.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20822 posts, RR: 62
Reply 10, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 1131 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 9):
Yet during those six years, the Senate confirmed 245 of President Bill Clinton's judges. If Republicans had been applying Mr. Reid's standard, they would have been within their rights to reject them all.

You make it sound like it was a land of Milk & Honey for the Clinton judges.  Silly

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050311/news_lz1e11legum.html

The real culprit here is Bush, who has ripped the "advice" out of "advice and consent." He has stubbornly refused to substantively communicate with any senators who oppose his nominees. When the Senate fails to confirm his nominees, Bush just reappoints them or, worse, bypasses the Senate altogether and installs them on the bench during a recess. This kind of toxic environment makes judicial filibusters more likely.

[...]

In reality, Republicans aren't motivated by a desire to protect the hallowed pages of the Constitution. Rather, right-wing zealots have shown themselves ready to do anything Ð and everything Ð to force through their judicial nominees while blocking those of their opponents.

During the Clinton years, they used a slew of questionable legislative ploys to smother judicial nominations quietly while in committee. One favorite tactic: In 1994 Sen. Hatch added language to the Senate rules for confirming nominees. His objective: to allow a single senator to easily Ð and secretly Ð block nominations from leaving committee. It worked.

Judge Marsha Berzon's nomination was secretly stymied for more than two years. (Sen. Smith finally admitted his role.) The nomination of Judge Ronnie White, who had bipartisan support in the Senate, languished in committee for almost two and a half years. Judge Helen White waited four years for a hearing; she never got one.

This behind-the-scenes scheming proved to be so popular Republicans were able to block more than 60 of Clinton's nominations. (To no one's surprise, as soon as Bush took office, Hatch abandoned this procedure, allowing nominees to sail through.) The bottom line: While a filibuster requires at least 41 senators on board to block a nominee, under Republican leadership, it took only a single dissent.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1125 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 10):
You make it sound like it was a land of Milk & Honey for the Clinton judges.

Actually, it was the Washington Post editorial that made it sound this way  Wink

I agree that the republicans unfairly Borked several of Clinton's lower court nominees (payback, of course). The point of the editorial, and my point, is that when it comes to SC nominees, Clinton's were treated with respect.

Unless they are repudiated, Reid's words are going to come back and bite President Hillary Clinton in the ass.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20822 posts, RR: 62
Reply 12, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1121 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 11):
Actually, it was the Washington Post editorial that made it sound this way

I guess what they say is true, isn't it? A paper is only as liberal as its conservative ownership allows, lol.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 11):
Unless they are repudiated, Reid's words are going to come back and bite President Hillary Clinton in the ass.

::gasp:: Even I couldn't vote for that.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineDvk From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1058 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1115 times:

Stupid article. First, Republicans blocked many more of Clinton's appointees than Dems have blocked of W's. The Republicans just did it by being obstructionists in committee, never allowing the appointees to reach the Senate floor. It was a difference of technique, and Republicans like to pretend that they weren't obstructionists because of the high confirmation rate for appointees who actually made it to the Senate for a vote. This is so well-documented that I'm sick of hearing conservatives complain so much about the minuscule number of judicial appointees the Dems have blocked.

Reid's statement means that the Senate is under no obligation to unanimously rubber stamp every nominee the President submits, contrary to what far too many conservatives think. It's another case of the current conservative sense of entitlement that, because the Presidency and Congress are both in their hands, they should get absolutely everything they want with no opposition.



I'm not dumb. I just have a command of thoroughly useless information.
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 40076 posts, RR: 74
Reply 14, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1111 times:

Cfalk:
You must be drinking the Kool-Aid now.
Have you given up on starting quality threads?
You speak as if Republican Senators never whined under Clinton.
Give us a break.
This thread won't go anywhere.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 25
Reply 15, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1094 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Thread starter):
So they should shut up and do their jobs, without threats of filibustering or any undemocratic crap like that.

Oh this is just priceless. The Constitution of the United States of America gives the minority the right to filibuster. Since when did this become "undemocratic crap"? Care to back that one up?

Quoting Cfalk (Thread starter):
They should be quiet and wait their turn, and republicans should ignore their opinion as long as they have the votes.

So, since the Democrats are a minority, they should just be quiet and obedient? Is that how a democracy works? Sounds more like a dictatorship.

I am dying to know what kind of democracy is ideal in your eyes. Is it one where the minority is silent? Where the minority is obedient? Where the minority is chastised for voting against something that is contrary to what they believe?

I'm absolutely stunned by your post.



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1084 times:

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 15):
So, since the Democrats are a minority, they should just be quiet and obedient? Is that how a democracy works? Sounds more like a dictatorship.

Of course not. Whichever party is in opposition must challenge where necessary for our system to work properly. But Reid is treating Roberts as if he was the same caliber of the recently departed director of FEMA, instead of the fully qualified candidate he is.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26815 posts, RR: 75
Reply 17, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1074 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Thread starter):
The president can nominate anyone he wants. He can nominate the ghost of Ronald Reagan, if that is his inclination.

Um, you should have said "he can name ANCFlyer if he wants" because a dead person is not allowed.

Quoting Cfalk (Thread starter):
The senate's job is simply to vote yes or no. So they should shut up and do their jobs, without threats of filibustering or any undemocratic crap like that.

You don't get it, do you? Constitutions are not about Democracy, they are about Constitutionalism. Constitutionalism balances the tyrrany that can come from a majority of people who think it is ok to run roughshod over everyone else. The Senate's job is NOT to simply vote yes or no. Their job is to be as thoughtful and meticulous in their process of confirming a nominee as a President is in picking them. Also, filibuster is a constitutionally allowed function of the Senate and is there for the same purpose, to protect the minority from unfair majority rule.

Quoting Cfalk (Thread starter):
The dems demand that Bush nominate another moderate to replace O'Conner.

O'Connor. Also, Senators can demand whatever they want, they may not get it but they have every right to make the demands and do what it takes to get them or some compromise

Quoting Cfalk (Thread starter):
revisionist like Ginsberg

Justice Ginsburg is no "revisionist", she is actually a slightly left leaning moderate with great respect for and knowledge of the laws of the United States (Much like rightist Rhenquist was).

Quoting Jake056 (Reply 3):
No one can deny that Judge Roberts is extremely well qualified to sit on the Court, and for Harry Reid to vote against him because of his supposed "concerns" re: civil rights, etc. is ludicrous

Yeah, who needs those civil rights? Why not just take away all of them and not let half the country vote?  sarcastic 

Quoting Jake056 (Reply 3):
Some dope from the 9th Circuit that voted that the Pledge is unconstitutional??

It is

Quoting Jake056 (Reply 3):
Judge Ruth was confirmed by the Senate 96-3. The republicans KNEW her views were liberal, (she had been general counsel for the ACLU) but since she was otherwise qualified, they voted for her. That is the way the system is supposed to work.

No, that is not how the system is supposed to work. You don't just automatically confirm a judge to the Court. In case you are gorgetting, the Republicans blocked another Clinton nomminee before they ultimately got Justice Breyer

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 9):
we deplored the way that the Senate treated the president's judicial nominees during six years of Republican control over the Senate. Yet during those six years, the Senate confirmed 245 of President Bill Clinton's judges. If Republicans had been applying Mr. Reid's standard, they would have been within their rights to reject them all.

And during those six years, they blocked FAR more of President Clinton's nomminees than the democrats have Bush's

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 16):
But Reid is treating Roberts as if he was the same caliber of the recently departed director of FEMA, instead of the fully qualified candidate he is.

Yes, he is perfectly well qualified for the right. He has a limited paper trail, represented corporate interests at Hogan and Hartson and hyper conservative



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineB744F From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1071 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Thread starter):
So they should shut up and do their jobs, without threats of filibustering or any undemocratic crap like that.

Please don't insult or question anything I say, ever. Your knowledge of the system is 3rd grade, at best.

Quoting Cfalk (Thread starter):
After having told their own more liberal candidate judges (like Ginsberg) that they did not have to answer such questions, this is open hypocracy.

The problem is Roberts said he would take the Ginsburg rule, and answer only questions about what he previously wrote in the past. Yet when the questions came about what he wrote in the past, he ducked almost every single one of them, thus showing how he flat out lied about what type of questions he would answer.

Did any of you even WATCH the hearings? I never watch TV but turned on CSPAN to watch the repeats. This sound-bite commentary just shows how uninformed our population is to actual events.


User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1065 times:

There's a simple answer for democrats - start winning elections.

Remember, the ran John "the Hero" Kerry against a cowardly, draft dodging, lying, idiotic, silver spoon in the mouth, recovering alcoholic with a coke addiction candidate and lost - not just in the electoral college (which was their complaint in 2000) - but also by over 2 million in the popular vote.

For all the bitching the democrats do, at some point they need to realize that whether they like it or not, the majority of Americans do not support them. As it stands now, I believe they may lose at least 1 and possibly 2 seats in the Senate next year and have absolutely no prospect of regaining the House.

As for 2008, HRC has to be respected but I'm not sure that she runs away with it. I predict that she'll have to battle to even win the Democrat Party nomination.


User currently offlineB744F From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1062 times:

Quoting Pope (Reply 19):
start winning elections.

Good luck to them when said cowardly, draft dodging, lying, idiotic, silver spoon in the mouth, recovering alcoholic with a coke addiction candidate raises 300 million dollars for said election from wealthy individuals and corporations. TV controls the masses that still have faith in the broken system, and that money can brainwash enough into voting for said candidate.


User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1062 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 17):
he can name ANCFlyer if he wants

Hmmmm, Justice ANCFlyer . . . nice ring don't ya think.  biggrin  silly 

Quoting Pope (Reply 19):
Remember, they ran John "the Hero" Kerry against a cowardly, draft dodging, lying, idiotic, silver spoon in the mouth, recovering alcoholic with a coke addiction candidate and lost - not just in the electoral college (which was their complaint in 2000) - but also by over 2 million in the popular vote.

For all the bitching the democrats do, at some point they need to realize that whether they like it or not, the majority of Americans do not support them. As it stands now, I believe they may lose at least 1 and possibly 2 seats in the Senate next year and have absolutely no prospect of regaining the House.

Sometimes, Pope, you surprise me . . .

Pretty well sums it up . . .

I suppose it's easier for the Democrats to find all the fault, large and small, with the Republicans (and there are a lot of them) then to attempt to fix their own house.

Wanna know something - if the powers were reversed, it'd be the same with the Republicans.

It's called partisan politics.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20822 posts, RR: 62
Reply 22, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1055 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 21):
Hmmmm, Justice ANCFlyer . . . nice ring don't ya think.

Just promise you won't hubbart your way through it, or we'll get very cross with you.  Silly



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1054 times:

Quoting B744F (Reply 20):
TV controls the masses that still have faith in the broken system, and that money can brainwash enough into voting for said candidate.

And our resident Howard Dean wannabe chimes in with his typical unsubstantiated load of crap.

The right controls the media - that's beautiful! Did you watch who attended the Peter Jennings tribute yesterday. I'll bet you that liberals out numbered conservatives at least 2:1.

In addition to controlling the weather, W's now figured out how to brain wash people through the TV. Hey wasn't one of the Batman movies based on that premise? Have you guys gotten so desparate for justifications of your failures that you've started to steal from movie plots.

What's next? W figures out a way to have a huge asteroid destroy California because it was a blue state!

Love it. Keep on posting B744F you represent your party well!!!!


User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1053 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 22):
Just promise you won't hubbart your way through it,

 eyepopping 

Uh Oh, here we go!


25 Post contains links TedTAce : Is this like Munson? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116778/ I have never heard that before...
26 Jaysit : The Dems got 50.5% of the presidential vote in 2000; 49% in 2004. I'd say that your comments that the majority of Americans do not support them is hy
27 B744F : You gave a good example for your next bit of nonsense by mentioning Dean First of all, I never said the "right" controls the media in that sentence,
28 Pope : How about the aliens that have been hiding beneath the soil awaiting from instructions from their mother ships. Does W's control these as well?
29 Cfalk : I just read the constitution, and I can't find anything there about filibusters. Can you give me an Article and section number? I don't need to insul
30 Post contains links AeroWesty : http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi...demagoguing_the_filibuster_debate/ The Constitution does not say one word about filibusters, but it does state
31 Pope : A cloture motion to end a filibuster needs only 60 votes. Therefore this 2/3 crap doesn't illustrate anything. Furthermore, the cloture rule is a rul
32 N1120A : Not as nice as Chief Justice N1120A It wouldn't take much Except that a vote on a that could also be subject to filibuster.
33 Post contains images Halls120 : Again, the words above attributed to me were written by the editorial staff of the Washington Post. How do you explain the fully qualified rating fro
34 Pope : I'm not sure that procedural votes are subject to filibuster. I know for a fact the rules of order for the Senate don't allow filibusters on certain
35 EA CO AS : So then by your own words, most people don't agree with your party's views and ideology - since obviously TV told them to vote against the Democrats.
36 B744F : I am not, and never said I was a Democrat. The Democrats cried foul because the nominee claimed to follow the Ginsburg test when questions were direc
37 N1120A : I know, but there is no "Quote Washington Post" button The ABA is currently on the outs with me for a lot of reasons No, and they haven't. One mentio
38 SATX : Your views seem just as partisan as those you are complaining about and it makes you look like a total hypocrite. How is that being 'undemocratic'? H
39 Jake056 : Let the Senate Dems whine as much as they want. It won't matter. The more they complain and explain, the more angry they get because the tide is turni
40 B744F : And you call this "working"??
41 Dan-Air : Stop the press! We now have definitive proof that the media is liberal! Proof I tell ya! Count the liberals at the TV anchor's funeral! Peter Jenning
42 Halls120 : Helms wasn't the Senate Majority leader.
43 L-188 : Lets go down your list Robert NovakDoubt it, based on his involvement Nutz's CIA wife story, which was cooked up to discredit the administration, Geor
44 B744F : Where are the sheep crying sources on this one??? Or do they only come out of their pen when I say something they refuse to believe is true.
45 ANCFlyer : What Reid did of course was tantamount to telling every Democrat in the Senate not to vote for the man . . . No, of course he didn't say that verbati
46 Post contains images SATX : Oh brother. And you consider this a legitimate response? Pathetic. Look in the mirror.
47 MidnightMike : Dan, that list that you supplied, if you go down the list one by the one, 90% of the people are not journalists. Rush Limbaugh is a talk show host, A
48 SATX : Why doesn't the 'mainstream' media include the AM dial, FOX NEWS, MSNBC, CNBC, WSJ, Washington Times, etc.? What difference does it make that one is
49 Halls120 : I wonder what Sen. Reid is going to do/say now? Clearly Pat Leahy understands the process a lot better than his leader in the Senate does. "The senior
50 Dan-Air : OK, that we can agree upon. Now back to the point, which was the tired "liberal media bias" meme - the one you guys trot out everytime you're losing
51 N1120A : Neither is Reid Wrong. That was a crime, not something "cooked up". George Bush and Karl Rove are the biggest beneficiaries in the repeal of the IC L
52 Post contains images EA CO AS : That's exactly why I'm confused by Democrats' repeated demands - they lost, they're in the minority, yet they think they're entitled to make demands
53 N1120A : Yes, they are, that is the point of having a Constitution One could say the same things about GWB in 2000
54 SATX : I don't recall that attitude coming from the conservatives after Clinton won, so why should the liberals be expected to suddenly follow it now? Let's
55 Pope : Wait a minute. Hold the presses. You guys can't have it both ways. Fox is either the right wing publicity department you guys usually claim it is OR
56 Halls120 : Oops. What I meant to say is that Helms wasn't the leader of his party in the Senate. Reid is. My bad.
57 SATX : The 'mainstream media' has never had ANYTHING to do with 'respectability'. It has everything to do with viewership. I'm surprised you even tried to m
58 N1120A : Helms was a leader and highly influential member within his party and made statements far more out of the norm of Reid's
59 EA CO AS : One could, but only if they were an ignorant fool.
60 Post contains images Dvk : You're absolutely correct. W won in 2000, 5-4.
61 AeroWesty : This is 2005. Should we go back and replay the Hamilton-Burr duel?
62 Halls120 : Helms was a crackpot who by the end of his service was an embarrassment to the republican party and to the Senate as a whole. That you consider him t
63 B744F : The minority of what? A minority of a minority who voted to begin with? So there were no demands made during Clintons 2 terms?
64 Post contains images Dvk : Actually, that is a very interesting story. Not the one-sided Burr was a bastard version we were taught in school at all. Actually, both Hamilton and
65 Halls120 : "Founding Brothers" by Joseph Ellis has an excellent chapter on Hamilton and Burr.....
66 B744F : Yes but Hamilton did not plan a takeover of the government with a foreign nation like Burr attempted.
67 Pope : At least we can agree on that statement, though I believe that members of the mainstream media certainly don't concede that point.
68 L-188 : Are you kidding? Elenor Clift is also a panelist....She kissed so much of Clinton's arse during his admin it was embarrassing.
69 B744F : Many Conservatives loved Clinton, at least the one who weren't bitter he stole their agenda
70 Cfalk : Did Clinton ever get more than 50% of the vote? No. Since conservative/liberal are RELATIVISTIC terms, and 50% of the country will be conservative an
71 Halls120 : Really? Can you name any public figures who identify themselves as conservative and profess love for Bill Clinton?
72 B744F : You will find all Conservative Democrats and some Conservative Republicans in that list which I'm sure you can stop being lazy by demanding everyone
73 PHLBOS : Michelle's a she. Ditto. You're either thinking of Robert Altman (for the movie) or Larry Gelbart (for the T.V. series).
74 Post contains links and images AeroWesty : I nearly pee'd my pants! I typed "Clinton Conservatives" into Google, then clicked "I'm Feeling Lucky" and it took me to: http://www.lewrockwell.com/
75 Cfalk : LOL! You make a nutty claim, and then say it is up to everyone else to prove it! Let's try it. I say you are a complete twit. Prove me right.
76 Halls120 : I can see the list. That isn't the point. Which of the conservatives on that list have in the past "professed their love" for Clinton? the truth is,
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Too Much Pork, Blame Democrats posted Fri Nov 4 2005 01:07:47 by Tbar220
Bulgaria/Romania: Too Much For The EU? posted Tue Sep 26 2006 18:58:14 by 9V
Eating Too Much At Night posted Sat Sep 9 2006 20:23:15 by RNOcommctr
You Know You've Used Google Earth Too Much When... posted Sat Jun 17 2006 12:48:43 by Hantsflyer27
Flash-Animator With Too Much Time On His Hand posted Tue Jun 13 2006 11:57:00 by NoUFO
Is There A Thing As Too Much Stability? posted Fri Apr 14 2006 01:55:11 by Derico
Songs That Get Played Too Much posted Fri Jan 27 2006 18:29:54 by RNOcommctr
The Results Of Studying Too Much. posted Fri Jan 27 2006 01:20:31 by Cadet57
Too Much Red Bull Can Be Bad For You..... posted Sat Jan 21 2006 18:24:46 by Alberchico
Too Much Time On Photoshop posted Wed Dec 14 2005 23:39:16 by Cosec59