cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

Senate Democrats Whine Too Much

Wed Sep 21, 2005 11:56 pm

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
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
tristarenvy
Posts: 2235
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2004 2:07 am

RE: Senate Democrats Whine Too Much

Wed Sep 21, 2005 11:58 pm

Great post but hope you have on flame retardant shorts....
If you don't stand for SOMETHING, you'll fall for ANYTHING.
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Senate Democrats Whine Too Much

Thu Sep 22, 2005 12:02 am

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
 
jake056
Posts: 283
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 7:41 am

RE: Senate Democrats Whine Too Much

Thu Sep 22, 2005 12:15 am

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.
 
jaysit
Posts: 10186
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: Senate Democrats Whine Too Much

Thu Sep 22, 2005 12:49 am

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.
Atheism is Myth Understood.
 
dvk
Posts: 1017
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2000 12:18 am

RE: Senate Democrats Whine Too Much

Thu Sep 22, 2005 12:49 am

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.
 
WellHung
Posts: 3299
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 8:50 pm

RE: Senate Democrats Whine Too Much

Thu Sep 22, 2005 12:51 am

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

+1
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Senate Democrats Whine Too Much

Thu Sep 22, 2005 12:54 am

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
 
IADBGO
Posts: 202
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 8:19 am

RE: Senate Democrats Whine Too Much

Thu Sep 22, 2005 12:59 am

[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
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Senate Democrats Whine Too Much

Thu Sep 22, 2005 1:04 am

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.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Senate Democrats Whine Too Much

Thu Sep 22, 2005 1:13 am

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
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Senate Democrats Whine Too Much

Thu Sep 22, 2005 1:18 am

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.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Senate Democrats Whine Too Much

Thu Sep 22, 2005 1:25 am

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
 
dvk
Posts: 1017
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2000 12:18 am

RE: Senate Democrats Whine Too Much

Thu Sep 22, 2005 1:29 am

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.
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: Senate Democrats Whine Too Much

Thu Sep 22, 2005 1:35 am

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
 
tbar220
Posts: 6706
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 12:08 pm

RE: Senate Democrats Whine Too Much

Thu Sep 22, 2005 2:30 am

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
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Senate Democrats Whine Too Much

Thu Sep 22, 2005 2:53 am

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.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Senate Democrats Whine Too Much

Thu Sep 22, 2005 3:19 am

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
 
B744F
Posts: 2927
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 4:52 pm

RE: Senate Democrats Whine Too Much

Thu Sep 22, 2005 3:24 am

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.
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: Senate Democrats Whine Too Much

Thu Sep 22, 2005 3:43 am

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.
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
B744F
Posts: 2927
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 4:52 pm

RE: Senate Democrats Whine Too Much

Thu Sep 22, 2005 3:49 am

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.
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Senate Democrats Whine Too Much

Thu Sep 22, 2005 3:53 am

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.
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Senate Democrats Whine Too Much

Thu Sep 22, 2005 3:57 am

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
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: Senate Democrats Whine Too Much

Thu Sep 22, 2005 4:01 am

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!!!!
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Senate Democrats Whine Too Much

Thu Sep 22, 2005 4:01 am

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

 eyepopping 

Uh Oh, here we go!
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
TedTAce
Posts: 9098
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:31 am

RE: Senate Democrats Whine Too Much

Thu Sep 22, 2005 4:25 am

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

Is this like Munson?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116778/
I have never heard that before...
This space intentionally left blank
 
jaysit
Posts: 10186
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: Senate Democrats Whine Too Much

Thu Sep 22, 2005 4:30 am

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 21):
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 . .

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 hyperbole at best. That's like Kennedy telling Nixon in 1960 that a majority of Americans don't support the GOP. It's nonsense. When you have the vote so evenly divided between candidates, trotting out comments like that fails the laugh test. You're dead on, however, when you say that they should stop whining and actually win elections, rather than lose them by narrow margins and say "well, we nearly won." To the victor go the spoils. And as far as spoils go, Judge Roberts is better than anything the Dems could have wanted. He will be confirmed quite easily.

As far as who will win in 2006, its up for grabs post-Katrina and given the miasma in Iraq. I doubt if Republicans will be running on Bush's coattails in closely fought elections.
Atheism is Myth Understood.
 
B744F
Posts: 2927
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 4:52 pm

RE: Senate Democrats Whine Too Much

Thu Sep 22, 2005 4:31 am

Quoting Pope (Reply 23):
And our resident Howard Dean wannabe chimes in with his typical unsubstantiated load of crap.

You gave a good example for your next bit of nonsense by mentioning Dean

Quoting Pope (Reply 23):
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.

First of all, I never said the "right" controls the media in that sentence, although it is quite obvious they do because they are the funding behind the big corporations.

Secondly, your comment about Mr Jennings proves nothing.

Third, if the media was so left wing, why were they pro-Bush during 9-11 and the Iraq war (until it became obvious we were led by false pretenses) and why was the Clinton bashing nonstop during his terms?

Quoting Pope (Reply 23):
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.

I never said they control the weather, I just said there have been reports of weather generating programs going on in the US and the former USSR

Quoting Pope (Reply 23):
What's next? W figures out a way to have a huge asteroid destroy California because it was a blue state!

I bet if he had the capability, he would love to.

Quoting Pope (Reply 23):
Love it. Keep on posting B744F you represent your party well!!!!

Do you even know which party I support? You are blind by anger my son, rational thought always gets in the way of the hatred you spew
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: Senate Democrats Whine Too Much

Thu Sep 22, 2005 4:34 am

Quoting B744F (Reply 27):
I bet if he had the capability, he would love to.



Quoting B744F (Reply 27):
I never said they control the weather, I just said there have been reports of weather generating programs going on in the US and the former USSR

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?
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Senate Democrats Whine Too Much

Thu Sep 22, 2005 4:59 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 17):
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 Tbar220 (Reply 15):
The Constitution of the United States of America gives the minority the right to filibuster. Since when did this become "undemocratic crap"?

I just read the constitution, and I can't find anything there about filibusters. Can you give me an Article and section number?

Quoting B744F (Reply 18):
Please don't insult or question anything I say, ever. Your knowledge of the system is 3rd grade, at best.

I don't need to insult your intelligence. You do a fine job on your own. And I would not worry too much about insulting such a tiny thing.

Quoting B744F (Reply 18):
Did any of you even WATCH the hearings? I never watch TV but turned on CSPAN to watch the repeats.

We don't get CSPAN in Europe. You consider me ignorant? Do you know as much about Swiss politics as I know about American politics?
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Senate Democrats Whine Too Much

Thu Sep 22, 2005 5:04 am

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 29):

I just read the constitution, and I can't find anything there about filibusters. Can you give me an Article and section number?

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi...demagoguing_the_filibuster_debate/

The Constitution does not say one word about filibusters, but it does state that ''each house may determine the rules of its proceedings." Does it speak by implication? In the case of impeachments ''no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the members" of the Senate. Either house may expel a member for disorderly behavior but only with the concurrence of two-thirds of the members of that house. Treaties must be ratified by two-thirds of the senators present. The president's veto may be overridden by two-thirds of each house. And to propose amendments to the Constitution, two thirds of both houses are necessary. It is therefore a fair inference that, unless another voting rule is prescribed, in all other cases only a simple majority is required. And no other rule is prescribed for the voting on each house's rules. To say that in a democracy majority rule is at least the default rule is hardly wild speculation.
International Homo of Mystery
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: Senate Democrats Whine Too Much

Thu Sep 22, 2005 5:27 am

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 30):
The Constitution does not say one word about filibusters, but it does state that ''each house may determine the rules of its proceedings." Does it speak by implication? In the case of impeachments ''no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the members" of the Senate. Either house may expel a member for disorderly behavior but only with the concurrence of two-thirds of the members of that house. Treaties must be ratified by two-thirds of the senators present. The president's veto may be overridden by two-thirds of each house. And to propose amendments to the Constitution, two thirds of both houses are necessary. It is therefore a fair inference that, unless another voting rule is prescribed, in all other cases only a simple majority is required. And no other rule is prescribed for the voting on each house's rules. To say that in a democracy majority rule is at least the default rule is hardly wild speculation

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 rule of the senate, able to be amended by a majority vote of the Senate at any time. Therefore, if tomorrow the GOP wanted to change the cloture rule to provide that debate can be cut off with 43 votes, that would be constitutional and allowable.

The part of the Consititution that is relevant is Article I, Section 5, Paragraph 2; "Each House may determine the rule of its proceeding...."
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Senate Democrats Whine Too Much

Thu Sep 22, 2005 6:00 am

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 21):
Quoting N1120A (Reply 17):
he can name ANCFlyer if he wants

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

Not as nice as Chief Justice N1120A

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 29):
Do you know as much about Swiss politics as I know about American politics?

It wouldn't take much

Quoting Pope (Reply 31):
Furthermore, the cloture rule is a rule of the senate, able to be amended by a majority vote of the Senate at any time. Therefore, if tomorrow the GOP wanted to change the cloture rule to provide that debate can be cut off with 43 votes, that would be constitutional and allowable.

Except that a vote on a that could also be subject to filibuster.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Senate Democrats Whine Too Much

Thu Sep 22, 2005 6:03 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 17):
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 nominees than the democrats have Bush's

Again, the words above attributed to me were written by the editorial staff of the Washington Post.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 17):

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

How do you explain the fully qualified rating from the ABA?

So what that he might be conservative? Bush is conservative, and he gets to nominate conservative judges. Clinton is liberal, and his SC appointees were liberal. Do you believe that only liberals get a free pass on to the SC?

Quoting B744F (Reply 18):
Please don't insult or question anything I say, ever.

Who died and made you God?

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 21):
Wanna know something - if the powers were reversed, it'd be the same with the Republicans.

At the lower court level,yes, they would. But I don't recall any republican issuing a Reid-like statement regarding Clinton's SC nominees.

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 26):
That's like Kennedy telling Nixon in 1960 that a majority of Americans don't support the GOP.

He would never have done that of course, because if the dead in Chicago hadn't have turned out en masse, Nixon would have won....

 stirthepot  sorry, I just couldn't resist.... biggrin 
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: Senate Democrats Whine Too Much

Thu Sep 22, 2005 6:08 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 32):
Except that a vote on a that could also be subject to filibuster.

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 questions - i.e. a ruling appealing a decision of the presiding officer. I'd have to research whether procedural votes like a change in the rules themselves are subject this tactic.
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 13382
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

RE: Senate Democrats Whine Too Much

Thu Sep 22, 2005 6:56 am

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

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...


Bottom line on the whole Supreme Court situation? It's laughable that the Democrats cry foul and insist that the President nominate someone who believes what they do, when those same Democrats would roll their eyes to that demand if the tables were turned and a Democratic president were nominating a liberal judge.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
B744F
Posts: 2927
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 4:52 pm

RE: Senate Democrats Whine Too Much

Thu Sep 22, 2005 7:02 am

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 35):
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...

I am not, and never said I was a Democrat.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 35):
Bottom line on the whole Supreme Court situation? It's laughable that the Democrats cry foul and insist that the President nominate someone who believes what they do, when those same Democrats would roll their eyes to that demand if the tables were turned and a Democratic president were nominating a liberal judge.

The Democrats cried foul because the nominee claimed to follow the Ginsburg test when questions were directed at his previous writings, but he went against that by not answering said questions about his previous writings.

Nobody is asking for a liberal nominee from the most out of touch, clueless Conservative to be President since Reagan.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Senate Democrats Whine Too Much

Thu Sep 22, 2005 7:24 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 33):
Again, the words above attributed to me were written by the editorial staff of the Washington Post.

I know, but there is no "Quote Washington Post" button

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 33):
How do you explain the fully qualified rating from the ABA?

The ABA is currently on the outs with me for a lot of reasons

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 33):
Do you believe that only liberals get a free pass on to the SC?

No, and they haven't. One mention of having used marijuana as a youth got an incredibly qualified nommination booted

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 33):
But I don't recall any republican issuing a Reid-like statement regarding Clinton's SC nominees.

Helms comments about Ginsburg certainly qualify. Also, don't forger that the Democrats breezed through an unquallified, sexually harassing judge onto the Court

Quoting Pope (Reply 34):
I'm not sure that procedural votes are subject to filibuster.

They are. Now, if a Constitutional question is called, that may be different, but there are public policy and political constraints
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
satx
Posts: 2771
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 7:26 am

RE: Senate Democrats Whine Too Much

Thu Sep 22, 2005 7:39 am

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.

Your views seem just as partisan as those you are complaining about and it makes you look like a total hypocrite.

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

How is that being 'undemocratic'?

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

How can the minority party demand anything? That doesn't make any sense.
Open Season on Consumer Protections is Just Around the Corner...
 
jake056
Posts: 283
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 7:41 am

RE: Senate Democrats Whine Too Much

Thu Sep 22, 2005 8:06 am

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 turning away from their way of governing. It isn't working.

The President will nominate someone who represents his way of thinking. Regardless of who that person might be, the Dems will absolutely bomb the nominee.

So bring the battle on. The crying and whining won't work. Just an exercise in frustration.

Democracy is never pretty, but it does work!!
 
B744F
Posts: 2927
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 4:52 pm

RE: Senate Democrats Whine Too Much

Thu Sep 22, 2005 9:29 am

Quoting Jake056 (Reply 39):
It isn't working.

And you call this "working"??
 
dan-air
Posts: 600
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 1999 6:13 am

RE: Senate Democrats Whine Too Much

Thu Sep 22, 2005 10:12 am

Quoting Pope (Reply 23):
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.

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 Jennings RIP, as hardline liberal as Limbaugh is conservative.

Damn liberal media! I can't think of a single conservative voice that gets any air time...or maybe I can....

Robert Novak, George Will, Brent Bozell, Mona Charen, Rich Lowry, Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, Michael Barone, Jonah Goldberg, Charles Krauthammer, Lawrence Kudlow, Michelle Malkin, Marvin Olasky, Kathleen Parker, Phyllis Schalfly, Tony Snow, Cal Thomas, Emmett Tyrell, Joseph Farah, David Broder, Doug Bandow, Joseph Farah, David Horowitz, Andrew Sullivan, Jeff Greenfield, Bob Bartley, John Fund, Tony Blankley, Lou Dobbs, Peggy Noonan, Christopher Hitchens, Mort Kondracke, Fred Barnes, Michael Medved, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, John Gibson, Laura Ingraham, Matt Drudge, Mark Williams, Neal Boortz, Joe Scarborough, Kate O'Beirne, Bill O'Reilly, Bill Safire, Mickey Kaus, David Gergen, Oliver North, Maggie Gallagher, Jack Kemp, Thomas Sowell, Tammy Bruce, Rod Dreher, John Derbeyshire, John Podhoretz, Stanley Kurtz, Byron York, Michael Novack, Joel Mowbray, Michael Savage, Norah Vincent, Hugh Hewitt, Alan Keyes, Dennis Prager, Oliver North, Laura Schlessinger, Stephen Hayes, Jeff Gertz, G. Gordon Liddy, Dinesh D'Souza, Steve Forbes, Melanie Morgan, Bill Sammon, Kenneth Timmerman, David Frum, John Stoessel, Brit Hume, Richard Berke, Linda Chavez, Tucker Carlson, David Limbaugh, David Brooks, P.J. O'Rourke, William F Buckley, Paul Gigot, Walter Williams, Bay Buchanan, William Kristol, Gary Aldrich, Arnaud de Borchgrave, Midge Decter, Frank Gaffney, Rich Galen, Lucianne Goldberg, Lloyd Grove, Reed Irvine, Kathryn Jean Lopez, Norman Podhoretz, Wesley Pruden, Debbie Schlussel, Ben Stein, Paul Weyrich.

I just don't know where I'd go to find conservative viewpoints (assuming I ignored radio, cable news channels, news magazines and the internet).
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Senate Democrats Whine Too Much

Thu Sep 22, 2005 10:37 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 37):
Helms comments about Ginsburg certainly qualify. Also, don't forger that the Democrats breezed through an unquallified, sexually harassing judge onto the Court

Helms wasn't the Senate Majority leader.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
L-188
Posts: 29870
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Senate Democrats Whine Too Much

Thu Sep 22, 2005 11:18 am

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, George Wiil Classic Prespective, backs it up, hardly a bomb thrower, Brent Bozell Isn't he a sportscaster?, Mona Charen never heard of her, Rich LowryNever heard of him, Ann Coulter Heard of her, would not list her as journalist, author commentator, not a newscaster, Pat Buchanan Nutcase, not to be with a conservative, common he has a seat on the McLaughlin Group for christs sake....thats PBS, Michael BaroneNevery head of him, Jonah GoldbergNever heard of him, Charles Krauthammer never heard of him, Lawrence Kudlow Any relation to Lisa?, Michelle Malkin Never heard of him, Marvin Olasky never heard of him, Kathleen ParkerNever heard of her, Phyllis Schalfly Never heard of him, Tony Snow sounds familiar, Cal Thomas Now I am just thinking of the Cal Worthington GO SEE CAL...GO SEE CAL...GO SEE CAL television adds, Emmett Tyrell I remember him, played for the Cowboys, Joseph Farah Never heard of him either.....anybody notice that a lot of these national press people, nobody has every heard of, David Broder Same deal don't know him, Doug Bandow Don't know him, Joseph FarahHeard of him, but only because you listed his name twice, David Horowitz You do know he started his career as a liberal, but like Reagan and Luke Skywalker he turned away from the Dark Side, Andrew Sullivan He wouldn't be related to George Sullivan, former mayor of Anchorage AK, Jeff Greenfield Didn't he used to host the "Victory Garden?, Bob Bartley Almost mis-read that as Bob Marley but I know he is dead, John Fund Grand Fund Railroad?, Tony Blankley, Sorry drawing a blank on blankly, Lou Dobbs I would hardly call an economic and finance commentatory a journalist, but being suportive of conservative economic principals wouldn't be that unlikely from an economist who knows his stuff, Peggy Noonan Know of her don't know her stuff. Peggy Hill's maiden name right? Still I could see here having a slightly right wing swing, Christopher Hitchens Don't know him, Mort Kondracke Don't know him, Fred Barnes Don't know him, is he tied in with Barnes Bullets by any chance? They makes some excellent solids, Michael Medved heard of him, Can't think of a single article he has written thought, Rush Limbaugh CLEARLY NOT A JOURNALIST!!!, Sean Hannity And yet they have him teamed up with a red winged socialist, so it workes out in the end, John Gibson Good Morning America John Gibson.. I have a hard time believing that, Laura Ingraham Little House on the Prarrie, right?, Matt Drudge Hardly a journalist, more like a rumor monger, and he hits both ways, Mark Williams I used to work with him, he was our parts guy, Neal Boortz Never heard of him, Joe Scarborough Are you kidding? that guy has a show on MSNBC for pete's sake, Kate O'BeirneDon't know here, I'll have to ask Scarborough, Bill O'Reilly Flipping New York Liberal, just look at his positions on the Patriot Act and Gun Control, Bill Safire Don't know him, Mickey Kaus Santa's alias for the other 11 months?, David GergenDidn't he write the Commanding Hights? If so more people need to listen to him, Oliver North Hardly a Journalist, was hired for "Name Recognition" just like so many weathermen in this country, Maggie Gallagher Don't know here, Jack Kemp Former Senator, hired for name recognition, again commentator not a reporter, Thomas Sowell Don't know him, Tammy BruceDon't know here, Rod Dreher Don't know him, John Derbeyshire John Podhoretz Nope, Stanley Kurtz I could see him being a Right Winger, after all Martin Sheen went up the Mekong to Cambodia to kill Kurtz, Byron York York, Bork, Bjork? , Michael Novack Any relation to Robbie?, Joel Mowbray Don't know him, Michael Savage RIght up there with Druge with being an actual reporter, Norah Vincent Don't know him, Hugh Hewitt Any Relation to Jennifer?, Alan Keyes Clearly not a Journalist, Dennis Prager Never heard of him, Oliver North OLI OLI, he's so nice, he was mentioned TWICE!!!, Laura Schlessinger Dr. Laura a Journalist? Give me a break, if you believe that you might need her counciling, Stephen Hayes Never heard of him, Jeff Gertz Never heard of him, G. Gordon Liddy I thought he went off the air years ago due to a stroke, besides again commentator not reporter, Dinesh D'Souza Wrote Marching Music for the Marines didn't he, Steve Forbes A libertarian and a republican/conservative are not interchangeable, Melanie Morgan Damm for a second I was pictureing Melanie Griffith, Bill Sammon Lead singer in a Phil Simon Tribute band, Kenneth Timmerman Don't know him, David Frum Din't know him, John Stoessel Don't think so, Brit Hume seems pretty level to me, Richard Berke Don't know him, Linda Chavez Nope, Tucker Carlson Ok, I could see him left of center on some issues, right on others, David Limbaugh Don't know him, David Brooks Know him, David Brooks, in partnership with Sam Simon started the TV show, "The Simpsons" You are free to hold anything after Season 8 against them, P.J. O'Rourke Played Bill Murray's girl in "Stripes" right...You know they put her topless scense back in the film on the extended DVD version, William F Buckley Classic Conservative, not a bomb thrower, again a commentator not a reporter/journalist, Paul Gigot I think that is the role they want him to play on PBS's McNeil Larher Newshour, but if he defends those positions to the best of his ablity is another discussion, Walter Williams Don't know him, Bay Buchanan No kid with the name of Bay could be a conservative, William Kristol Don't know him, Gary Aldrich Don't know him, didn't he write the Script for M*A*S*H, Arnaud de Borchgrave Sounds French, Midge Decter Midge? , Frank Gaffney Don't know him, Rich Galen Name sounds familiar but I don't know him, Lucianne GoldbergName sounds familiar but can't site any of her stuff, Lloyd Grove Wasn't that name mentioned in that song...damm can't remember the title, but "We didn't start the fire......Lloyd Grove,Tuscanny, Dacron, Dein-Bein Phu falls, Rock Around the Clock", Reed Irvine Any Relation to Michael Irving?, Kathryn Jean Lopez Jay-Lo's less slutty sister?, Norman Podhoretz Norman Mailers alter ego? seems fair, Wesley Pruden Don't know of him, Debbie Schlussel Don't know of here, Ben Stein Actor, Economist, Game Show host, but definately not a reporter/journalist, Paul Weyrich Don't know him
.[/quote]


A lot of these alleged conseratives/right wingers, aren't, and those who are either don't have a lot of circulation or are not journalists.

There clearly is a disparity in favor of liberal socialist viewpoints in the major media.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
B744F
Posts: 2927
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 4:52 pm

RE: Senate Democrats Whine Too Much

Thu Sep 22, 2005 11:32 am

Quoting L-188 (Reply 43):
There clearly is a disparity in favor of liberal socialist viewpoints in the major media.

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.
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Senate Democrats Whine Too Much

Thu Sep 22, 2005 11:37 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 33):
At the lower court level,yes, they would. But I don't recall any republican issuing a Reid-like statement regarding Clinton's SC nominees.

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 verbatim, he couldn't possibly do that . . . but just the fact he said what he said is enough for the partisan hacks to get in line . . . .

I think he'll be confirmed . . . and he should be.
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
satx
Posts: 2771
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 7:26 am

RE: Senate Democrats Whine Too Much

Thu Sep 22, 2005 11:50 am

Quoting L-188 (Reply 43):
...John Stoessel Don't think so, Brit Hume seems pretty level to me, Richard Berke Don't know him...

Oh brother. And you consider this a legitimate response? Pathetic.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 45):
partisan hacks

Look in the mirror.  talktothehand 
Open Season on Consumer Protections is Just Around the Corner...
 
MidnightMike
Posts: 2810
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:07 am

RE: Senate Democrats Whine Too Much

Thu Sep 22, 2005 11:52 am

Quoting Dan-Air (Reply 41):
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 Jennings RIP, as hardline liberal as Limbaugh is conservative.

Damn liberal media! I can't think of a single conservative voice that gets any air time...or maybe I can....

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, Ann Coulter is an author and a consultant, Alan Keyes is involved in politics, Bill O'Reilly & Sean Hannity are talk show hosts, etc

I will agree with you that a majority of the talk show hosts on the AM side, are usually conserative talk show hosts.

As far as the mainstream media, be it the LA Times, NY Times, etc, that is owned by the Liberals
NO URLS in signature
 
satx
Posts: 2771
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 7:26 am

RE: Senate Democrats Whine Too Much

Thu Sep 22, 2005 11:57 am

Quoting MidnightMike (Reply 47):
As far as the mainstream media, be it the LA Times, NY Times, etc, that is owned by the Liberals

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 a 'talk show host' and the other is a 'journalist'? Shouldn't who gets the most airtime have more to do with it? Even if you consider NBC, ABC, and CBS to all be hard-core liberal, well, that's 1.5 hours of live news in any given day. Compared to just FOX NEWS, that's nothing!
Open Season on Consumer Protections is Just Around the Corner...
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Senate Democrats Whine Too Much

Thu Sep 22, 2005 12:42 pm

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 Democrat on the Judiciary Committee announced Wednesday he will vote to confirm John Roberts for chief justice of the United States after leading senators met with President Bush to discuss candidates for a second high court vacancy.

The announcement by veteran Sen. Patrick Leahy came amid virtually unprecedented executive-legislative branch jockeying over not one, but two high court openings, the seats left vacant by the death of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and the retirement of Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Leahy's decision, made public shortly after he and three other leading senators met privately with Bush at the White House to discuss candidates for O'Connor's place on the bench, came on the eve of the Judiciary panel's vote on whether to favorably recommend Roberts' confirmation to the full Senate.

Four leading senators including Leahy floated several names to Bush, but the president kept his own list to himself at a White House breakfast earlier Wednesday.

Leahy, D-Vt., said he still has some concerns about Roberts. "But in my judgment, in my experience, but especially in my conscience I find it is better to vote yes than no," he said. "Judge Roberts is a man of integrity. I can only take him at his word that he does not have an ideological agenda.""
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AirPacific747, Baidu [Spider], jpetekyxmd80, zanl188 and 21 guests