Frist calls Alito Democrats' "nightmare"

[zimv20]

link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/court_alito_dc;_ylt=Ap5vBze4jBa6gHj9BvXosyqs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--)


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist told Republican Party activists on Friday night that U.S. Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito was the "worst nightmare of liberal Democrats."

Frist, a Tennessee Republican, made the remark to fellow Republicans during a private tour he gave them of the Senate chamber when the Senate was not in session.

Frist was not available for comment following his remarks.

Asked about the senator's remark, Frist spokesman Bob Stevenson said that Alito "is a thoughtful mainstream conservative jurist who is well respected by his peers, by Democrats and Republicans alike."

Stevenson added, "There are liberals, many of them represented by the outside groups, who will do anything to kill any nominee put forward by this administration."

Democrats have expressed concerns the conservative Alito would push the nation's highest court to the right in areas such as abortion rights, civil rights and presidential powers.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to vote on Tuesday on the Alito nomination and the full Senate intends to debate it next week.

Three top Democrats announced this week they would vote against sending Alito to a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. They are Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the senior Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and Dick Durbin of Illinois.

No Democrat so far has said he or she would try to block a Senate floor vote on Alito through a procedure known as a filibuster.

The Republican National Committee was holding a winter meeting in Washington this week, and the 50 or so party activists from across the United States were invited by Frist to tour the Senate chamber.

[silverback66]

Awesome!

[zimv20]

yes, because the more like football politics is, the better, right?

there was a time when the people in washington were leaders. and i'm not just talking about the GOP.

we get the gov't we deserve. thanks for acting as lowest common denominator, sb.

[silverback66]

whatever, I've seen your version of "politics" so from now on out I may as well just cheer on what I agree with. Won't it be something when the republicans control the legislative, the executive and the judicial branch of government? Aren't you excited!? I am!

[zimv20]

be careful what you wish for. your views may change when you finish high school.

[silverback66]

Psst....dude, I'm in college already. I'll be graduating next year. Imagine that, a conservative on a college campus! That would make for one zany movie eh govna? eh?

[zimv20]

my mistake. i thought you were younger.

[Agathon]

whatever, I've seen your version of "politics" so from now on out I may as well just cheer on what I agree with. Won't it be something when the republicans control the legislative, the executive and the judicial branch of government? Aren't you excited!? I am!

I am. It will drive the US into the dirt, from where it can't bother anyone else.

Sounds good to me.

[silverback66]

If by dirt you mean conservative utopia...I agree! Put er' there partner! ;)

[Agathon]

If by dirt you mean conservative utopia...I agree! Put er' there partner! ;)

A life that is nasty brutish and short... some utopia.

Didn't you claim to attend a college in another thread?

DeVry?

[solvs]

Won't it be something when the republicans control the legislative, the executive and the judicial branch of government?
What do you mean when? I don't know where you've been, but we're pretty much already there. And it isn't so great. Just ask about 61% of the country. ;)

my mistake. i thought you were younger.
Easy mistake to make, I would have guessed young as well had he not mentioned it in another thread.

[pseudobrit]

Psst....dude, I'm in college already. I'll be graduating next year. Imagine that, a conservative on a college campus! That would make for one zany movie eh govna? eh?

No, it's going to make for a really rude awakening when a hardcore ideologue has to deal with the diversity of the real world. Look out below!

[iGary]

Well Mr. Frist and a good portion of the (R's) should enjoy the next couple of years, because they are going to lose the White House and Congress come election time.

A lot of people in this country, including conservatives, have had it with this BS.

[silverback66]

No, it's going to make for a really rude awakening when a hardcore ideologue has to deal with the diversity of the real world. Look out below!


Yeah, gee, thanks for the heads up. I'll keep watching put for tht rude awakening. Man yu guys are pretty desperate. These must be like nightmarsh times for your. The country is virtually completely rejectig your whole idealogy is favor of morality and all you can do is spout some catch phrases and bitch and moan. You poor liberals you. You could always flock to San Franscico or Canada and have your liberal utopia of course by it's very nature it would ultimatley destroy itself. Poor poor liberals. Boo hoo...

[silverback66]

Wel Mr. Frist and a good portion of the (R's) should enjoy the next couple of years, because they are going to lose the White House and Congress come election time.

A lot of people in this country, including conservatives, have had it with this BS.

Of course your top candidate is moving farther and further to the left and out of touch with America and word is spreading that Condi Rice is going to run. Dang man.....shutdown....

[pseudobrit]

Yeah, gee, thanks for the heads up. I'll keep watching put for tht rude awakening. Man yu guys are pretty desperate. These must be like nightmarsh times for your. The country is virtually completely rejectig your whole idealogy is favor of morality and all you can do is spout some catch phrases and bitch and moan. You poor liberals you. You could always flock to San Franscico or Canada and have your liberal utopia of course by it's very nature it would ultimatley destroy itself. Poor poor liberals. Boo hoo...

You so came here just to troll. Do us a favour and go the **** away, troll.

[iGary]

Of course your top candidate is moving farther and further to the left and out of touch with America and word is spreading that Condi Rice is going to run. Dang man.....shutdown....

Who's my top candidate and where did I say who it was? :confused:

Oh, you were putting words in my mouth. Gotcha.

[silverback66]

You so came here just to troll. Do us a favour and go the **** away, troll.
oh but remember....free speech, free speech. LikeI've sadi, you don't like it, block me. Otherwise quit whining.

[Dont Hurt Me]

This country does much better when ran from the center rather then the loony fringes on the right or left. Alito's appointment makes sure that the loony right takes control of all 3 branches. This isnt good for our country just as having a bunch of crooks like the republicans running things arent good for our country. We need a balance of power and Alito's nomination ensures the coming of the all powerful Police State intruding into our freedoms and libertys which by the way have taken a nose dive under the current administration. Alito has shown many times that the state is God and piss on the little guy.

Alito isnt just a nightmare for the liberal, but a nightmare for anyone who loves liberty & freedom.

[iGary]

This country does much better when ran from the center rather then the loony fringes on the right or left.

That's pretty much true with anything. No epiphone here.

Alito's appointment makes sure that the loony right takes control of all 3 branches.

Not really, he's really a right of center moderate in sheep's clothing.

This isnt good for our country just as having a bunch of crooks like the republicans running things arent good for our country.

Pretty broad stroke of the brush there.


We need a balance of power and Alito's nomination ensures the coming of the all powerful Police State intruding into our freedoms and libertys which by the way have taken a nose dive under the current administration.

One man doesn't ensure this.

Alito has shown many times that the state is God and piss on the little guy.

Link, please.

Alito isnt just a nightmare for the liberal, but a nightmare for anyone who loves liberty & freedom.

He's not as bad as you make him out to be, but safe enough to make the cut.

[silverback66]

That's pretty much true with anything. No epiphone here.



Not really, he's really a right of center moderate in sheep's clothing.



Pretty broad stroke of the brush there.




One man doesn't ensure this.



Link, please.



He's not as bad as you make him out to be, but safe enough to make the cut.
My gosh....someone whose sensible and fairminded! What a breath of fresh air!

[rdowns]

My gosh....someone whose sensible and fairminded! What a breath of fresh air!

Aren't we smug.

This country is hardly voting for morality. In fact, your leadership couldn't give two s@#&s about it, they merely latched onto it as a way to maintain power. They have done more to divide this country along age, class, religion, race, sexuality and red/blue state bs. The "moral" crowd votes, so many others are just so apathetic or feel they don't make a difference. Bigger turnout in 2004 was a start.

As for your party's morality, did you believe....

the ever flip flopping reasons to invade Iraq (pick one)?
them and their reasons for Sciavo?
the Social Security boondoggle?
I could go on.

What ever happened to the Republican party I voted for? You remember 1994, the Contract with America? the end of the cycle of scandal? restore accountability to Congress?

What do we have now? Tom Delay, Jack Abramoff, Bill Frist - how I wish these guys were only getting hummers in their offices.

[iGary]

What ever happened to the Republican party I voted for?

Rob and I were talking about that subject this very morning.

[rdowns]

Rob and I were talking about that subject this very morning.

I think term limits are the answer. Seems the only way to break the culture of corruption in Washington (both parties).

Possibly making terms in the house longer so they're not running for re-election every other year and so eager to scarf money from special interests.

Real campaign finance reform.

Nuke the next SOTU speech and start from scratch.

[aquajet]

What ever happened to the Republican party I voted for?

It was hijacked by the neocons.

I think term limits are the answer. Seems the only way to break the culture of corruption in Washington (both parties).

How long do you think the term limits should be for the HoR and the Senate?

And do you think there should be term limits in the judiciary?

BTW, I hope this thread doesn't get shut down too.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Good morning rdowns and you took the words out of my mouth, what ever happened to the republican party we use to support? They went crazy far right. The best thing we could do is find a way for Our big govt to start representing the people. The republicans have done an excellent job of representing Corporations even letting them write govt policy on crucial matters such as Health & Energy. How do we get Govt to rediscover the people??? Perhaps our whole system of Govt has become so corrupt that its impossible. We need a 3rd party but those other two wont ever let that happen.

[rdowns]

How long do you think the term limits should be for the HoR and the Senate?

And do you think there should be term limits in the judiciary?

BTW, I hope this thread doesn't get shut down too.

2 terms in the Senate definitely, 12 years is a long time. Tougher to say in the house with such short 2 year terms. Maybe lengthen the term to 3 or 4 years (less running for re-election) and limit them to 12 years served too.

[Dont Hurt Me]

2 terms in the Senate definitely, 12 years is a long time. Tougher to say in the house with such short 2 year terms. Maybe lengthen the term to 3 or 4 years (less running for re-election) and limit them to 12 years served too.
Seems good at face value but lets get real, the partys only start thinking of the people at election time and then forget em, I would hate to think that we would have to wait longer to get those crooks attention.

[aquajet]

2 terms in the Senate definitely, 12 years is a long time. Tougher to say in the house with such short 2 year terms. Maybe lengthen the term to 3 or 4 years (less running for re-election) and limit them to 12 years served too.

That seems reasonable. Although I think the House term should stay at 2 years. That would give the voters a quick way out if somebody started to F around.

[Thomas Veil]

Yeah, gee, thanks for the heads up. I'll keep watching put for tht rude awakening. Man yu guys are pretty desperate. These must be like nightmarsh times for your. The country is virtually completely rejectig your whole idealogy is favor of morality and all you can do is spout some catch phrases and bitch and moan. You poor liberals you. You could always flock to San Franscico or Canada and have your liberal utopia of course by it's very nature it would ultimatley destroy itself. Poor poor liberals. Boo hoo...Oh, Jesus. Is this the essence of childish gloating or what? (Not to mention the sort of hubris that precedes a long fall from a great height.)

"Completely rejecting"?? All you've got are elections that you have to win with lies, dirty tricks and propaganda. Admittedly winning is what ultimately counts, but polls show repeatedly that Americans hold liberal values, not conservative ones. If your guys had to tell the truth and campaign on what they really believe, instead of dissembling, covering up and smearing their opponents, they'd appeal to only a small section of American voters.

"Morality"? Hmm. Show me the biblical justification (or any moral justification for that matter) for voter intimidation, sending kids off to die for a pack of lies, violation of privacy rights, betraying our own spies, or any of the other slimy actions of our fearless leader.

oh but remember....free speech, free speech. LikeI've sadi, you don't like it, block me. Otherwise quit whining.Not here, sir. This is a privately-owned forum. You (or I for that matter) have no "right" to completely free speech here. So when you quit trolling, we'll quit "whining".

Or, you can carry on as you have been, in which case I look forward to your next banning.

EDIT: Just to get back on-topic...

I don't have any faith that term limits (or extensions) will do any good. I think the system has shown that it can corrupt even fledgling campaigns. I think the only true answer is federal financing of elections which would remove any and all taint of corporate donations.

[Ugg]

I don't have any faith that term limits (or extensions) will do any good. I think the system has shown that it can corrupt even fledgling campaigns. I think the only true answer is federal financing of elections which would remove any and all taint of corporate donations.

I agree, as long as corporate interests can control elections, there's no hope. Also, I believe that the campaign times need to be shortened to something like 9 months before the elections and that incumbents should have serious limits put on their ability to campaign while in office. Too much time is spent campaigning and too little governing.

[aquajet]

I think the only true answer is federal financing of elections which would remove any and all taint of corporate donations.

How would you determine which candidates receive federal money for campaigning?

[rdowns]

How would you determine which candidates receive federal money for campaigning?

All of them and no other monies.

[silverback66]

Oh, Jesus. Is this the essence of childish gloating or what? (Not to mention the sort of hubris that precedes a long fall from a great height.)

"Completely rejecting"?? All you've got are elections that you have to win with lies, dirty tricks and propaganda. Admittedly winning is what ultimately counts, but polls show repeatedly that Americans hold liberal values, not conservative ones. If your guys had to tell the truth and campaign on what they really believe, instead of dissembling, covering up and smearing their opponents, they'd appeal to only a small section of American voters.

"Morality"? Hmm. Show me the biblical justification (or any moral justification for that matter) for voter intimidation, sending kids off to die for a pack of lies, violation of privacy rights, betraying our own spies, or any of the other slimy actions of our fearless leader.

Not here, sir. This is a privately-owned forum. You (or I for that matter) have no "right" to completely free speech here. So when you quit trolling, we'll quit "whining".

Or, you can carry on as you have been, in which case I look forward to your next banning.

EDIT: Just to get back on-topic...

I don't have any faith that term limits (or extensions) will do any good. I think the system has shown that it can corrupt even fledgling campaigns. I think the only true answer is federal financing of elections which would remove any and all taint of corporate donations.

Dang man, talk about delusional. Poor lefties, you're oh so innocent when it comes to politics. You would never smear a candidate or manipulate information to try to get your views across would you?

If voters are intimidated in America it's their own fault. You lib's like to blame everyone but yourselves for your problems. You deflect, deny and point the finger and all the while you have no idea how bloody ridiculous you look to everyone else. Frankly, you act like children.

Will you just go to Canada already? America doesn't want you anymore. Oh that's right, Canada is about to elect a conservative leader too. Well, there's always Europe for you I suppose. I hear that's a secuar progressive eutopia this time of year.

[takao]

silverback66: people like you are the reason why anti-americanism is spreading absolutly crazy in europe at the moment.. sure you won't notice in the next years but 10-15 years from now the US will run into more problems when the older generations are breaking away

but i guess you don't care anyways ... have fun ...

[silverback66]

silverback66: people like you are the reason why anti-americanism is spreading absolutly crazy in europe at the moment.. sure you won't notice in the next years but 10-15 years from now the US will run into more problems when the older generations are breaking away

but i guess you don't care anyways ... have fun ...

Well you know what...two things. first off, the majority of my family still lives in Europe and second of all....I don't care what Europe thinks.

If you guys want to consume yourselves with hate go ahead. It won't do you any good and it won't do us any harm.

[iGary]

Dang man, talk about delusional. Poor lefties, you're oh so innocent when it comes to politics. You would never smear a candidate or manipulate information to try to get your views across would you?

I call Straw Man (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html)

You deflect, deny and point the finger and all the while you have no idea how bloody ridiculous you look to everyone else. Frankly, you act like children.

The Bush Administration has done a pretty good job making themselves look ridiculous, they don't need any help, frankly.

Will you just go to Canada already? America doesn't want you anymore.

Wowwie. You speak for the entire country. Rawk.

[iGary]

If you guys want to consume yourselves with hate go ahead.

I call Straw Man (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html) again.

Do you have an actual fact-based argument, or are you just going to call people dirty, whiny, hating liberals and put words in people's mouths?

I'd prefer a good debate, but evidently...

[silverback66]

I call Straw Man (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html)



The Bush Administration has done a pretty good job making themselves look ridiculous, they don't need any help, frankly.



Wowwie. You speak for the entire country. Rawk.

C'mon now Gary I may throw out the occasional straw man, but from my perspective I see an army of scarecrows staring back at me.

I like the Bush administration. I think they've done a good job and what liberals call ridiculous I call a bold move in the right direction.

And yes, didn't you get the memo? I've been given power of attoreney for lady liberty!

[iGary]

C'mon now Gary I may throw out the occasional straw man, but from my perspective I see an army of scarecrows staring back at me.

I like the Bush administration. I think they've done a good job and what liberals call ridiculous I call a bold move in the right direction.

And yes, didn't you get the memo? I've been given power of attoreney for lady liberty!

Unfortunately, the Bush Administration has courted the religious right (Ronnie started the ball rolling during his administration - and before you call me a hater, I stood in line for 12 hours to pay my respects to the old feller) to an obscene amount. This is OK with you because you are a man of faith. Unfotunately, our government was set up not to be a theocracy. You'd like this, and that is your opinion, but it is certainly a minority view.

Now we have microchips going into passports, you basically give up every constitutional right you have to fly on a plane, people are getting their personal records searched and their phones tapped, billions of wasted dollars on a war we had no business launching...

Here's the scary part - all anyone has to say to answer those issues is:

Terrorism.

And forbid you say anything against the "war on terror" in this country, even if it does mean giving up your Constitutional freedoms.

The only thing I thank Bush for is a few tax breaks and not trashing the dignity of the office of President like Clinton did.

That's where my allegiance ends.

[aquajet]

All of them and no other monies.

But surely there must be limits. If 10 congressional candidates are running for a particular seat, should all 10 receive federal funding?

[PlaceofDis]

Well you know what...two things. first off, the majority of my family still lives in Europe and second of all....I don't care what Europe thinks.

If you guys want to consume yourselves with hate go ahead. It won't do you any good and it won't do us any harm.

1. you should care what Europe thinks. we live in a Global world, not a national one. Other countries do matter. what happens when we need help and no one gives a crap about the US? oh yeah....

2. you are the only one i see in this thread consumed with hate.

[Sayhey]

Folks, any thread with silverback in it is a candidate to be shut down. My response is to not respond to the childish posts. If he wants to be part of this community he can begin posting in an adult manner. I'm not putting him on ignore, yet, in the hopes he can shape up, but this is the last time I'll acknowledge silly taunts from the peanut gallery. Now back to the real discussion.

There seems to be a growing effort at filibustering Alito's nomination. Take a look at this article (http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/) at Salon.com. Still not a good bet, but much more so than last week. Time to talk to your Senators if you want to stop this nomination.

Could there still be a filibuster in Alito's future?

Conventional wisdom -- including our own -- says the Democrats aren't going to filibuster the nomination of Samuel Alito. Dick Durbin says not so fast.

According to a report in the Chicago Sun-Times, the Democrat from Illinois thinks a filibuster is more likely than he did just a few days ago. "A week ago, I would have told you it's not likely to happen," Durbin said Thursday. "As of yesterday, I just can't rule it out. I was surprised by the intensity of feeling of some of my colleagues."

Durbin, who has announced that he'll vote against Alito, said he still doesn't know whether opponents of the nomination have the votes to pull off a filibuster. "It's a matter of counting," he said. "We have 45 Democrats, counting [independent] Jim Jeffords, on our side. We could sustain a filibuster if 41 senators ... are willing to stand and fight. We're asking senators where they stand. When it reaches a critical moment when five senators have said they oppose a filibuster, it's off the table, it's not going to happen. But if it doesn't reach that moment, then we'll sit down and have that conversation."

The Senate Judiciary Committee will vote -- probably along party lines -- on Alito's nomination Tuesday. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist will likely put the matter before the full Senate on Wednesday. So far, only one Democrat, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, has announced that he'll cross over to support Alito. But even if the rest of the Democrats stick together in opposition to Alito, there's a big difference between casting a futile no vote and going to the mat on a filibuster.

Can Durbin round up 40 colleagues who are willing to take that step? He says he won't know until he knows. We say, don't hold your breath.

[silverback66]

Unfortunately, the Bush Administration has courted the religious right (Ronnie started the ball rolling during his administration - and before you call me a hater, I stood in line for 12 hours to pay my respects to the old feller) to an obscene amount. This is OK with you because you are a man of faith. Unfotunately, our government was set up not to be a theocracy. You'd like this, and that is your opinion, but it is certainly a minority view.

Now we have microchips going into passports, you basically give up every constitutional right you have to fly on a plane, people are getting their personal records searched and their phones tapped, billions of wasted dollars on a war we had no business launching...

Here's the scary part - all anyone has to say to answer those issues is:

Terrorism.

And forbid you say anything against the "war on terror" in this country, even if it does mean giving up your Constitutional freedoms.

The only thing I thank Bush for is a few tax breaks and not trashing the dignity of the office of President like Clinton did.

That's where my allegiance ends.

Well given my own beliefs why is it so bad for me to be happy about religious influence in American government? I mean wouldn't you be happy if there were less? To be honest Gary, I sometimes pray for religious persecution in America. the vast majority of Christians in this country have the impression that Christianity is about comfort. It's what the global Christian community calls Americanized Christianity. It's lazy and often is nothing mroe than words. Given this format of communication all I can offer here is my words, but its my contention that showing the love of Christ to others is best done through actions and not words. I'm well aware that words about God annoy those who don't believe in him, but who would object to somebody perhaps putting some change in their parking meter when it's expired or offering a jacket and food to a homeless man?

With regards to the microchips and surveilance and what not, I hate to say it, but that's all in the Bible. It's a sign of the end times. I'm not saying that's a justification for it, merely stating a fact. Frankly, it doesn't bother me. I'm not doing anything wqrong so what do I have to fear? In a recent poll (and yes I'll try to find a link) 61% of Americans said that president bush should have the authority to conduct wiretaps without warrants. I agree. What good are civil liberties if you're not alive to use them? We're in a time of war, and the rules are different. We have to do what's neccessary to protect our citizens. When the war is over life will slowly return to normal. It happened during every single war that America has every fought, so relax, things will change when the circumstances change. That's why we elect presidents every four years to guide the country in the direction we see fit.

[Ugg]

But surely there must be limits. If 10 congressional candidates are running for a particular seat, should all 10 receive federal funding?

There would have to be some practical limits on the number of candidates, or else a certain sum of money could be allocated for the position and then split amongst all candidates. I'm sure it's a situation that could be abused but then aren't they all? It would be better than having all office holders beholden to their corporate masters.

[takao]

I don't care what Europe thinks.

you could have saved yourself that sentence .. i already knew that

luckily there are other americans who care


(last post in this thread from me)

[silverback66]

1. you should care what Europe thinks. we live in a Global world, not a national one. Other countries do matter. what happens when we need help and no one gives a crap about the US? oh yeah....

2. you are the only one i see in this thread consumed with hate.

When Europe gets rid of leaders like Jaques Chirac I'll care what they think. Elect some people worth listening to and I'll listen.

As to you second point, I don't have any hate for anyone here. for certain ideas? You bet. I'll gladly go from civil to savage when if people are treating me in that way.

[Blue Velvet]

With regards to the microchips and surveilance and what not, I hate to say it, but that's all in the Bible. It's a sign of the end times.

Oh pul-lease... Didn't someone call us delusional back there?

[PlaceofDis]

When Europe gets rid of leaders like Jaques Chirac I'll care what they think. Elect some people worth listening to and I'll listen.

As to you second point, I don't have any hate for anyone here. for certain ideas? You bet. I'll gladly go from civil to savage when if people are treating me in that way.

every heard of tolerance? its a novel idea. without it everyone would be same-thinking same-people same-believing. diversity is a fact of life. other people have ideas. some of which i agree with, some of which i don't. but just because i don't like them doesn't mean i don't respect them. they have that right. and who cares if you don't like a few of Europe's leaders right now? doesnt meant they should be written off completely. being tolerant of other views is an important thing. if you disagree and think everyone needs to think like you, well then, you are misguided.

[Sayhey]

you could have saved yourself that sentence .. i already knew that

luckily there are other americans who care


(last post in this thread from me)

takao, your thinking on any subject is always welcome by this American. And while I can't speak for others, I can observe that most American posters here would seem to agree with me in welcoming your views. Please don't let fools drive you away from participating.

[PlaceofDis]

Oh pul-lease... Didn't someone call us delusional back there?

oh i missed that one. thanks BV.

yeah seperation of Religion and State. supposedly a cornerstone of this Country. its fading sadly.

and religion has or shouldn't have anything to do with politics.

[aquajet]

There would have to be some practical limits on the number of candidates, or else a certain sum of money could be allocated for the position and then split amongst all candidates. I'm sure it's a situation that could be abused but then aren't they all? It would be better than having all office holders beholden to their corporate masters.

Yeah, nothing ever works quite how we plan, does it?

There are some significant consequences to this proposal. Allocating funds to multiple candidates (>2) would essentially obsolete our two-party system.

And we can't allow the big two to select candidates for federal funding, either. That is, unless we are willing to let the government take over the two parties, and completely outlaw all private donations.

I'm skeptical that this could ever work as we intend it.

Please people, keep it real. Let's not get another thread burned.

[iGary]

To be honest Gary, I sometimes pray for religious persecution in America.

So let me get this right. You pray ill will on others? That's an immense mound of hypocrtical mess, there - don't you think? Love your neighbor, pray for persecution on him? Well, whatever floats your boat.


Given this format of communication all I can offer here is my words, but its my contention that showing the love of Christ to others is best done through actions and not words.

Let me ask you a personal question, and you don't have to answer if you don't like. At the end of the day, why do you serve God and Christ? If you answer love - why do you love them?

I'm not so sure your reasons for loving and serving Christ and God are really so selfless.

[silverback66]

every heard of tolerance? its a novel idea. without it everyone would be same-thinking same-people same-believing. diversity is a fact of life. other people have ideas. some of which i agree with, some of which i don't. but just because i don't like them doesn't mean i don't respect them. they have that right. and who cares if you don't like a few of Europe's leaders right now? doesnt meant they should be written off completely. being tolerant of other views is an important thing. if you disagree and think everyone needs to think like you, well then, you are misguided.

Leaders in democratic societies are more often than not a reflection of the people. Not everyone needs to think like me but also I don't need to support those whose ideas are against my own.

[silverback66]

oh i missed that one. thanks BV.

yeah seperation of Religion and State. supposedly a cornerstone of this Country. its fading sadly.

and religion has or shouldn't have anything to do with politics.

It's not in the constitution...

[mactastic]

Term limits haven't been the problem-solver they were promised to be here in California. Maybe making them longer would help, but the problem is that nobody has time to really learn the nitty-gritty of their chosen area of interest before they are off to a new elected office to learn the ropes all over again. It doesn't prevent career politicians, it just shuffles them from office to office in the hopes they can move up the ladder to the Gov's mansion, or US Congress.

It's also resulted in piss-poor knowledge among the Reps. Is a hydrologist or a water-management specialist going to get elected, then luck out and wind up on the Water Management Committee? Heck no, most of them are lawyers or business types. So they have to get the equivalent of a college education plus years of work in the field compressed into a tiny time span, then make recommendations on legislation. After a couple years a (good) representative is finally capable of making some good, rational decisions about the subject matter. But around here, that's right when they get term-limited out of office.

Problem is, term limits throws the baby out with the bathwater. If we get good politicians, we need to keep them around. It's the bad ones that need to go.

[PlaceofDis]

It's not in the constitution...

first amendment?

[iGary]

first amendment?

No, he's saying the actual words "separation of church and state" aren't in the Constitution.

Well neither are fair trial, religious liberty or due process.

Next.

[Ugg]

Yeah, nothing ever works quite how we plan, does it?

There are some significant consequences to this proposal. Allocating funds to multiple candidates (>2) would essentially obsolete our two-party system.

And we can't allow the big two to select candidates for federal funding, either. That is, unless we are willing to let the government take over the two parties, and completely outlaw all private donations.

I'm skeptical that this could ever work as we intend it.

Please people, keep it real. Let's not get another thread burned.

Yeah, it could threaten the two party system. I've mixed feelings about that. It does offer stability but too often the only choices are black and white when reality is shades of grey. I think I would rather have a multi party system. It seems that they provoke much more public involvement in politics and that to me is a good thing.

In the end, it's Congress policing itself and that rarely does anyone any good.

[takao]

takao, your thinking on any subject is always welcome by this American. And while I can't speak for others, I can observe that most American posters here would seem to agree with me in welcoming your views. Please don't let fools drive you away from participating.

well i stayed away a lot in the last few weeks from the politic forums not really on purpose but i guess the topics were to US domestic for me...

that aside:
silver back complaining about chirac is so ironic that i don't really know what to write... complaining about a christian conservative politician ? if you don't like him then wait for the next elections in france (and italy) when a turnover to the left parties is very likely
after all chirac is hardly popular in europe but most people would take chirac over bush or berlusconi any day

[silverback66]

So let me get this right. You pray ill will on others? That's an immense mound of hypocrtical mess, there - don't you think? Love your neighbor, pray for persecution on him? Well, whatever floats your boat.




Let me ask you a personal question, and you don't have to answer if you don't like. At the end of the day, why do you serve God and Christ? If you answer love - why do you love them?

I'm not so sure your reasons for loving and serving Christ and God are really so selfless.

You're mistaken. It's not ill will on others, it's needed pressure so that their faith can be strengthened. You don't understand it because you're not a believer, but if you were, you would. If you think it's a hypoctrical mess then go ahead and blame the house church in china which is one of the most persecuted churches in the world because they came up with the idea. Brother Yun, one of it's leaders has had cattle prods stuck in his mouth. He's had his testicles crushed with a hammer and he's the one with whom this idea originates.

You're right to say I serve God because I love Him (By the way God and Christ is still singular, not plural). I love Him for a lot of reasons. Mainly because He first loved me and was willing to die for me so that I could live. "No greater love has a man than this, but to lay his life down for his friends." that's what Jesus said and he walked the walk. I also love God because of the liberation He's given me from what mine own heart previously was. Before I became a Christian I wanted to be a great filmmaker at any cost. It was more important to me than anything including relationships in my life. I was also a huge binge drinker and would go out a party nearly every weekend with my friend. I even took shots of rum before going to some of my classes freshman year because I just wanted the buzz. It was all empty. It was meaningless. Loving God showed me that ther is significance to life and that the way we treat each other does matter. It's taken time and I'm stilll and will as long as I live be in the process, but what I desire now is to continue to grow in my faith and my relationship with Christ and by His grace be able to reflect His love to others mainly through actions but also words where neccessary.

[silverback66]

well i stayed away a lot in the last few weeks from the politic forums not really on purpose but i guess the topics were to US domestic for me...

that aside:
silver back complaining about chirac is so ironic that i don't really know what to write... complaining about a christian conservative politician ? if you don't like him then wait for the next elections in france (and italy) when a turnover to the left parties is very likely
after all chirac is hardly popular in europe but most people would take chirac over bush or berlusconi any day

Exactly man, when the next elections come around I'll give the elected leaders a chance and see what they're all about. I don't see irony in me criticisizng conservative leaders. Jush Cashman is a conservative judge but I think he ought to be thrown out immediatley. It's about right and wrong, not right and left.

[Sayhey]

The phrase "wall of separation between Church & State" comes from Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists. It does show what his understanding of the First Amendment's establishment clause meant.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.Library of Congress (http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html) emphasis added

One could add many other quotes on the subject from Madison, Washington, and Supreme Court decisions since their time, but even if it is only a contest of Jefferson's understanding or silverback's I don't think I've a problem deciding who is right.

[iGary]

You're mistaken. It's not ill will on others, it's needed pressure so that their faith can be strengthened. You don't understand it because you're not a believer, but if you were, you would.

Holy cow, where did I say I didn't believe in God or Jesus?

So then, what are the ultimate consequences of not loving God and Jesus in your mind (I'm being serious here).

[Blue Velvet]

I also love God because of the liberation He's given me from what mine own heart previously was. Before I became a Christian I wanted to be a great filmmaker at any cost. It was more important to me than anything including relationships in my life. I was also a huge binge drinker and would go out a party nearly every weekend with my friend. I even took shots of rum before going to some of my classes freshman year because I just wanted the buzz.


Merely swapping one form of excess for another.

[PlaceofDis]

so silverback, what about those of other religions. say Buddhist? what would you like to do to them since they don't have the exact same belief structure as yours?

[Ugg]

I also love God because of the liberation He's given me from what mine own heart previously was. Before I became a Christian I wanted to be a great filmmaker at any cost. It was more important to me than anything including relationships in my life. I was also a huge binge drinker and would go out a party nearly every weekend with my friend. I even took shots of rum before going to some of my classes freshman year because I just wanted the buzz. It was all empty. It was meaningless. Loving God showed me that ther is significance to life and that the way we treat each other does matter. It's taken time and I'm stilll and will as long as I live be in the process, but what I desire now is to continue to grow in my faith and my relationship with Christ and by His grace be able to reflect His love to others mainly through actions but also words where neccessary.

So you came to religion due to an emptiness in your life, fine. Why do you rely on someone else to provide meaning? Can't meaning be found within? I've known quite a few people who have taken the same path as you and I still don't understand what the attraction to religion is. It's hard to look inside of oneself but in the end, knowing oneself is the most empowering act there is. Religion can only ever support this not provide it on its own.

[Ugg]

Merely swapping one form of excess for another.

:D

[atszyman]

But surely there must be limits. If 10 congressional candidates are running for a particular seat, should all 10 receive federal funding?

Petitions....

If you can turn in a petition with a certain number of verifiable signatures you become eligible for election funding. Make TV advertisements free (or extremely cheap) and equally available for all candidates on public funding. Any other political ads need to be prohibitively expensive to prevent some corporate sponsored "write-in" campaign.

[Ugg]

Petitions....

If you can turn in a petition with a certain number of verifiable signatures you become eligible for election funding. Make TV advertisements free (or extremely cheap) and equally available for all candidates on public funding. Any other political ads need to be prohibitively expensive to prevent some corporate sponsored "write-in" campaign.

Couldn't that lead to corporate sponsorship of candidates? Meaning that a corporation would choose a candidate, back him as surreptiously as possible and then have a corporate rubber stamper in place. I think there would have to be some clearly and sharply defined limits to the point where it might discourage a lot of candidates.

[silverback66]

Holy cow, where did I say I didn't believe in God or Jesus?

So then, what are the ultimate consequences of not loving God and Jesus in your mind (I'm being serious here).

I apologize if you do. I assumed that you didn't based on what you've said.

The consequence of not accepting the free gift of salvation you're offered by Christ is you pay the punishment for your own sins. that is to say, you go to hell. However, in Revelations it speaks of something called the Great White Throne Judgement. Here's the verses:

11I saw a Great White Throne and the One Enthroned. Nothing could stand before or against the Presence, nothing in Heaven, nothing on earth. 12And then I saw all the dead, great and small, standing there--before the Throne! And books were opened. Then another book was opened: the Book of Life. The dead were judged by what was written in the books, by the way they had lived. 13Sea released its dead, Death and Hell turned in their dead. Each man and woman was judged by the way he or she had lived. 14Then Death and Hell were hurled into Lake Fire. This is the second death--Lake Fire. 15Anyone whose name was not found inscribed in the Book of Life was hurled into Lake Fire.

I used The Message because it's easier for most people to understand.

You know what, all ************* aside, I don't even now you guys but I care about you and I care what happens to you. I apologize for the way I've treated you and for wrong assumptions and critical remarks I've made and I hope you can forgive me for that. All I can say is life is bigger than politics and if I could impart just one thing to you it's that Christ cares for you and wants a personal relationship with you. the desicion is yours, but that's it right there. That's what life is all about.

[silverback66]

so silverback, what about those of other religions. say Buddhist? what would you like to do to them since they don't have the exact same belief structure as yours?

I'd like to help them to know Christ. It's not that what they believe is bad, it's that there's soemthing better. Ans also, it's more than just a belief, Christianity at it's core is about a relationship between God and man (or woman).

[iGary]

The consequence of not accepting the free gift of salvation you're offered by Christ is you pay the punishment for your own sins. that is to say, you go to hell.

So you love God and Christ so you won't go to hell.

Kinda selfish, don't you think?

[mactastic]

Public funding of campaigns I'd definitely be in favor of, just not one-size-fits-all term-limits.

Or were we talking about God again? ;)

[silverback66]

So you came to religion due to an emptiness in your life, fine. Why do you rely on someone else to provide meaning? Can't meaning be found within? I've known quite a few people who have taken the same path as you and I still don't understand what the attraction to religion is. It's hard to look inside of oneself but in the end, knowing oneself is the most empowering act there is. Religion can only ever support this not provide it on its own.

Someone...yeah, Jesus Christ....God. You can try to find meaning within, but what does it all mean? What do you see as the purpose of life? What happens to you when you die? Why are we here and what's your place in this world? As for others who may have taken the same path as me, that's the thing, God tells a unique story in each of our lives. Mine will be different than yours and Gary's will be different than both of ours. Hence why it's a matter of relationship and not religion.

[PlaceofDis]

I'd like to help them to know Christ. It's not that what they believe is bad, it's that there's soemthing better. Ans also, it's more than just a belief, Christianity at it's core is about a relationship between God and man (or woman).

well lets see. i was rasied on Christianity. My parents are still Catholic. i'm not. why? well first off let me say that its not like i didn't participate in the religion either. i attended church every weekend. worked for the church, went to private schools etc. i was very Christian at one point. and you know what? its not better than any other religion. there is no reason to go try making other people believe in something they don't want to. i don't need a relationship with any higher power to make my life happy.

[silverback66]

So you love God and Christ so you won't go to hell.

Kinda selfish, don't you think?

No, I love God because He loved me and by His grace I no longer have to pay the punishment for my sins.

[iGary]

No, I love God because He loved me and by His grace I no longer have to pay the punishment for my sins.

Well whatever works. I still think its selfish to hold a certain set of beliefs so you won't rot in hell, but go to heaven instead,

But that's just me. ;)

[Sayhey]

Ever notice how every thread is being turned into one person's attempt to proselytize the world to his religion? Doesn't matter the subject. It is always brought around to his religious beliefs. Get the idea we are being used for an individual's missionary need to convert the "heathen" to the ways of the "righteous."

[PlaceofDis]

Ever notice how every thread is being turned into one person's attempt to proselytize the world to his religion? Doesn't matter the subject. It is always brought around to his religious beliefs. Get the idea we are being used for an individual's missionary need to convert the "heathen" to the ways of the "righteous."

it is going that way. :rolleyes: :mad:

[silverback66]

well lets see. i was rasied on Christianity. My parents are still Catholic. i'm not. why? well first off let me say that its not like i didn't participate in the religion either. i attended church every weekend. worked for the church, went to private schools etc. i was very Christian at one point. and you know what? its not better than any other religion. there is no reason to go try making other people believe in something they don't want to. i don't need a relationship with any higher power to make my life happy.

Were you raised in the Christian faith or the Christian religion? there is a difference. Based on what you said I would conclude the latter. I don't mean that as an insult in anyway, merely an obsevation. Going to church isn't what's most important to God, neither is working for the church or which schol you went to. You can't be indoctrinated into faith. It's something that must be chosen freely and the best that I can do is pass on to you what I know and leave the big choices to you. Let me ask, what does it mean when you say you were very Christian? What does it mean to be a Christian to you? You're right to say you don't need a relatiosnhip with a higher power to make your life happy. Of course is happiness your highest aspiration because there is more. You can't know joy apart from God. Let me explain the difference....Happiness is fleeting and based upon our circumstances, Joy on the other hand is present through good times and bad and transcends circumstance. It comes from God alone and is one of the many gifts that He provides for those who love him.

[Ugg]

Someone...yeah, Jesus Christ....God. You can try to find meaning within, but what does it all mean? What do you see as the purpose of life? What happens to you when you die? Why are we here and what's your place in this world? As for others who may have taken the same path as me, that's the thing, God tells a unique story in each of our lives. Mine will be different than yours and Gary's will be different than both of ours. Hence why it's a matter of relationship and not religion.

The purpose of life is simply life itself. Why complicate things? When I die, my body will slowly return to the earth from whence it came. My place in the world is what it is. I don't need to define myself through a religion that places so much emphasis on predatory and threatening recruitment or on a book that is so intent on obfuscation that it simply has no meaning. christ's teachings are in the league of Ghandi's or King's and they are valuable to me but they don't define my life. He was just another man like I am.

As you grow older, you'll find that what is most important in this life is not your relationship with a god but your relationships with other human beings. They define life.

[Sayhey]

Were you raised in the Christian faith or the Christian religion? there is a difference. Based on what you said I would conclude the latter. I don't mean that as an insult in anyway, merely an obsevation. Going to church isn't what's most important to God, neither is working for the church or which schol you went to. You can't be indoctrinated into faith. It's something that must be chosen freely and the best that I can do is pass on to you what I know and leave the big choices to you. Let me ask, what does it mean when you say you were very Christian? What does it mean to be a Christian to you? You're right to say you don't need a relatiosnhip with a higher power to make your life happy. Of course is happiness your highest aspiration because there is more. You can't know joy apart from God. Let me explain the difference....Happiness is fleeting and based upon our circumstances, Joy on the other hand is present through good times and bad and transcends circumstance. It comes from God alone and is one of the many gifts that He provides for those who love him.

I think you just proved my point in my last post.

[mactastic]

Anyone here have any experience with bipolar individuals?

[silverback66]

Well whatever works. I still think its selfish to hold a certain set of beliefs so you won't rot in hell, but go to heaven instead,

But that's just me. ;)

actually you don't rot in hell, you burn. you go for a nice swim in a lake of fire, but that's beside the point. Why is it selfish in your mind?

[Ugg]

It comes from God alone and is one of the many gifts that He provides for those who love him.


What about those who don't love him? Am I damned because I don't love him even though I may well be a better person than most of those who do? Any system that only reward members of the club is bound to fail in the end by exclusion.

[Blue Velvet]

actually you don't rot in hell, you burn. you go for a nice swim in a lake of fire, but that's beside the point.

Aaah, to be young again and so certain of the world around you.

[silverback66]

The purpose of life is simply life itself. Why complicate things? When I die, my body will slowly return to the earth from whence it came. My place in the world is what it is. I don't need to define myself through a religion that places so much emphasis on predatory and threatening recruitment or on a book that is so intent on obfuscation that it simply has no meaning. christ's teachings are in the league of Ghandi's or King's and they are valuable to me but they don't define my life. He was just another man like I am.

As you grow older, you'll find that what is most important in this life is not your relationship with a god but your relationships with other human beings. They define life.

If that answer satisfies you then by all means, but have you ever honestly questioned and taken the time to evaluate whether there's somethign more? And again it's not about religion, it's about relationship. You use the terms predatory and threatening to describe those who have reached out to you which is interesting. If you had cancer and someone had the cure and they were offering it to you but you were cautioned that upon taking it you wouldn't be the same person you were before I can totally understand how that'd be threatening. It was threatening to me too. I used to tell my friends in high school what idiots they were for believeing in this garbage. You know why? Because I never bothered to look into it for myself. I assumed I knew what it was all about and I actively sought out arguments against it so I could try to refute my friends. Their answers didn't satisfy me because they sounded like nothing more than a bunch of religious garbage. I was too threatenetd by the possibility to bother to look into it.

With regards to you last comment, you are partly right. Jesus said that the most important commandments were to love God and to love others which goes right along with what you're saying.

[silverback66]

Anyone here have any experience with bipolar individuals?

I have....me before I became a Christian and me afterwards. Remarkable the difference. Of course the odl me occasioanlly pops up to take pot shots, but I try to put him behind me wherever possible.

[iGary]

With regards to you last comment, you are partly right. Jesus said that the most important commandments were to love God and to love others which goes right along with what you're saying.

Right, and you pray for others persecution.

Man, I am having the hardest time wrapping my head around your logic.

[skunk]

No, I love God because He loved me and by His grace I no longer have to pay the punishment for my sins.I see. In other words, you can rant and belittle and despise and gloat as much as you like, because you have a lifetime pass. Seems to me that this god of yours has very poor judgment.

[skunk]

I have....me before I became a Christian and me afterwards. Remarkable the difference. Of course the odl me occasioanlly pops up to take pot shots, but I try to put him behind me wherever possible.It's not working.

[Sayhey]

In another pathetic attempt to get this thread back on topic and away from one poster's dogmatic religious views, here is a link (https://political.moveon.org/donate/alito.html) to moveon.org's latest TV ad about Alito.

[aquajet]

Anyone here have any experience with bipolar individuals?

I am. Where you going with this??? :mad: :confused: :eek: :D :mad: :) :confused: :( :o

[silverback66]

What about those who don't love him? Am I damned because I don't love him even though I may well be a better person than most of those who do? Any system that only reward members of the club is bound to fail in the end by exclusion.

No, you're not neccessarily damned. Go check out those verses regarding the great white throne judgement I posted. Basically, if you die without having accepted Christ what will happen is your life will be evaluated based on what you did and your entry into heaven will hinge up whether at that moment you accept Christ or not. See the issue isn't whether or not you're a good person because by whose standars are you judging? As I illustrated with myself, according to God's standards' I'm a liar, an adulterer, a glutton, a murderer and probably a whole lot of other things. I can't save myself from my own sin which is why Christ came and died on my and your behalf. The only ones who will be excluded from heaven are those who died without accepting Christ and lived immoral lives. God doesn't want to punish anyone. If He did then He wouldn't have come in the first place. He could have easily left us to our own devices and just let us die and take our own punishment. He didn't, which says a lot about His heart towards us.

[atszyman]

Couldn't that lead to corporate sponsorship of candidates? Meaning that a corporation would choose a candidate, back him as surreptiously as possible and then have a corporate rubber stamper in place. I think there would have to be some clearly and sharply defined limits to the point where it might discourage a lot of candidates.


Like I said, every candidate would have to get a certain number of signatures to get the public funding. After which they would have to play by the same rules as the rest of the candidates. If a corporation wanted to aid in a particular candidate to get the required signatures fine, but expect that bit of information to become fair game in the campaign when everyone is on equal turf. I have a feeling corporate sponsorship to get the signatures would become more of a liability in the regular election than it would be worth in obtaining the funding.

[silverback66]

Right, and you pray for others persecution.

Man, I am having the hardest time wrapping my head around your logic.

I'm trying Gary, I'm trying lol.

the bible does say lean not on your own understanding and also that God's ways are higher than our own. Think of this in spiritual terms. If the point of life is a relationship with God and those who are in a relationship with Him are more inclined to seek comfort than Him what is the best way to increase their faith and reliance on God? Remove the comfort right? I would never pray for someone else to be physically, emotionally or physcologically harmed, but certainly if I would and do pray for people to be challeneged which is the form that the persecution I speak of takes. I pray it for myself as well. Does that make more sense?

[silverback66]

I see. In other words, you can rant and belittle and despise and gloat as much as you like, because you have a lifetime pass. Seems to me that this god of yours has very poor judgment.

I apologized for that and I apologize again to you personally. I was angry and I let that control me rather than better judgement. I think we can all relate to that right?

[silverback66]

It's not working.

then I'll try harder and rely more on the grace of God.

[zimv20]

I was angry and I let that control me rather than better judgement. I think we can all relate to that right?
you do it every single time. an apology isn't going to make everything better. have a ****ing drink, why don't you. there's no difference between a wet and dry drunk, except at least one's tolerable.

[zimv20]

In another pathetic attempt to get this thread back on topic and away from one poster's dogmatic religious views, here is a link (https://political.moveon.org/donate/alito.html) to moveon.org's latest TV ad about Alito.
thanks for that.

[silverback66]

you do it every single time. an apology isn't going to make everything better. have a ****ing drink, why don't you. there's no difference between a wet and dry drunk, except at least one's tolerable.

so I have an anger problem. I'm working on it.

[blackfox]

Leaders in democratic societies are more often than not a reflection of the people. Not everyone needs to think like me but also I don't need to support those whose ideas are against my own.

I love the smell of fresh irony in the morning...

On to the topic at hand.

You know, I read a very interesting article in this months' Atlantic about the Supreme Court. I would've loved to have linked to it, but it is by subscription only (meh).

In any case, the article is really concerning the fact that although the Court is now Roberts' (as Chief Justice), it is really more of Stevens' Court. He has managed, through creativity and diplomacy to moe the court in a very Centrist way.

The major decisions of the past few years - Upholding Affirmative Action at Michigan, striking down state laws banning partial-birth abortions, upholding the McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance Law, striking down the death penalty for juveniles and the mentally-retarded, dealt blows to the "Property Rights" movement, asserted jurisdiction over detentions at Guantanamo Bay, and rewritten federal sentencing guidelines to make juries and not judges, make the important factual findings for sentencing. (to name most).

In all the above cases (iirc), Stevens was in the majority and Rehnquist in dissent, meaning that Stevens decided who wrote the opinion for a large body of law, in most cases himself.

It is also mentioned that the four liberals on the court form a more cohesive block than the five Conservatives and it is often easy to pull one or two justices to their opinion (often Kennedy or O'Connor, traditionally, but as with the sentencing case, sometimes with Scalia and Thomas)

So to point, whether Alito makes it to the Court or not, I am not sure it will be the conservative "utopia" some might believe - due to the character of those long-serving justices on the court such as Stevens and Breyer.

Although Stevens is 85, and anything could happen it is unlikely that he will retire before the end of Bush's term - and it is likely that the next President, if not a Democrat, will be a more centrally-aligned individual than Bush, with most likely a more evenly-divided Congress - this bodes well for any future Supreme Court nominations.

So things may not change as much as we might have thought. Alito, while worrisome in some ways, is unlikely to tip the scales.

[Sayhey]

thanks for that.

You're welcome. Here's a link (https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?JServSessionIdr005=ffrty5jzr1.app26a&pagename=homepage&id=367&page=UserAction) to the ACLU's webpage urging action to stop Alito's nomination. While I'm at it here's the same type page for Americans United for Separation of Church and State (http://capwiz.com/au/issues/alert/?alertid=8318456&type=CO), NOW (http://www.capwiz.com/now/callalert/index.tt?alertid=8379191&type=CO), and NARAL (http://www.naral.org/).

[Thomas Veil]

Dang man, talk about delusional. Poor lefties, you're oh so innocent when it comes to politics. You would never smear a candidate or manipulate information to try to get your views across would you?

If voters are intimidated in America it's their own fault. You lib's like to blame everyone but yourselves for your problems. You deflect, deny and point the finger and all the while you have no idea how bloody ridiculous you look to everyone else. Frankly, you act like children.

Will you just go to Canada already? America doesn't want you anymore. Oh that's right, Canada is about to elect a conservative leader too. Well, there's always Europe for you I suppose. I hear that's a secuar progressive eutopia this time of year.In the spirit of what Sayhey said, I'm gonna choose to simply let much of this go for now. It is so over-the-top (not to mention repetetive) that it's really unworthy of comment....

Except to say that, silverback, while I'm glad Jesus helped turn you away from one destructive lifestyle, I'm praying he can also turn you away from this one. I've no idea what it was that gave you this cartoonish political view, nor where you got the idea that you speak for America, nor why you're so insistent on getting liberals to emigrate. But I do know that this attitude typifies the worst qualities of the "Christian" right, and I'll pray that you someday learn that Jesus is not just a personality to deify, He is a way of life to be followed.

[mactastic]

Well that didn't take long. I didn't even get a chance to go into my spiel about how the rights of free speech don't actually apply to a private forum.

Anyhoo... I wonder what the Vegas odds are of Alito getting confirmed. Everyone in the Traditional Media seems to think this is a slam dunk -- so to speak.

[solvs]

You don't understand it because you're not a believer, but if you were, you would.
I'm a believer, and I don't agree with 90~% of what you've said.

I was also a huge binge drinker and would go out a party nearly every weekend with my friend. I even took shots of rum before going to some of my classes freshman year because I just wanted the buzz. It was all empty. It was meaningless. Loving God showed me that ther is significance to life and that the way we treat each other does matter.
Yes, it does. And suddenly you make perfect sense. You still have a lot of work to go. If you are still reading this, I suggest you really seek to understand what you preach so you will begin to practice it. At the moment you sound more like a follower of a false prophet or someone who hides behind religion to justify your bitterness and hatred. You're making the rest of us look bad. We aren't all this bad folks. Some of us live the words of God and Jesus rather than just talk about it. Calling people names and telling them to leave a country they love because they disagree with the politics of the current administration is not very Christian, let alone American.

ON TOPIC: Has anyone posted the link where the Dems may fillibuster? Because if they can get the support, they will try to fillibuster. I'm not worried about a somewhat conservative court, I'm worried about a neocon court.

[rdowns]

I see silverback got banned. It's what god would have wanted.

[Thomas Veil]

Banned again, huh? That was fast. Didn't he just get back from being banned?

Not gonna gloat, though. I sincerely meant it when I said I hope he can find his way out of this alternate-reality world view he has. It's really sad to see that in someone so young.

[pseudobrit]

yes, because the more like football politics is, the better, right?

Speaking of which, I'm enjoying watching his home state's team get its ass handed to it by my home team (just got back from Pittsburgh a few hours ago, in fact).

[zimv20]

Speaking of which, I'm enjoying watching his home state's team get its ass handed to it by my home team (just got back from Pittsburgh a few hours ago, in fact).
my grandma, who lives outside pittsburgh, gave me some steeler pajama pants for xmas. w/o claiming causality, i will note that they've won every game while i'm wearing them.

yes, i've been a steelers fan since the early 70's.

[Dont Hurt Me]

my grandma, who lives outside pittsburgh, gave me some steeler pajama pants for xmas. w/o claiming causality, i will note that they've won every game while i'm wearing them.

yes, i've been a steelers fan since the early 70's.
This is about Alito! Pittsburgh vs Carolina in the super bowl, No Defense no superbowl.

[OnceUGoMac]

Speaking of which, I'm enjoying watching his home state's team get its ass handed to it by my home team (just got back from Pittsburgh a few hours ago, in fact).


Damn straight. I see the Steelers winning the whole thing this season...finally. :)

[zimv20]

Damn straight. I see the Steelers winning the whole thing this season...finally. :)
::knocks on wood::

[pseudobrit]

Damn straight. I see the Steelers winning the whole thing this season...finally. :)

I'll be bar hopping on Carson St. on game day. Anyone else? The south side's gonna be bedlam.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Alito's in. Another sad day for freedom loving liberty loving Americans. This guy has never ever sided with the little guy. Never! he has allways ruled for a intrusive govt without checks and balances. Get ready because you are going to be seeing a lot of crap coming out of the supreme court such as torture is OK, The president ignoring law is ok, strip searching 10 year olds is ok , govt taking peoples land is ok,and so the police state intruding into all our lives will be ok. He has thought it was ok for nixon to bug people, he has sided with govt no matter what they do. Anything. Its a discusting time to be an American.

[mactastic]

I feel you this time DHM... You know it's true. Corporations and Big Government will have a friend at the high court. Bush has another friendly ear on the court that selected him to the job in the first place. :(

[Dont Hurt Me]

With Alito, Government will allways be right no matter what the case. Govt wins no matter what it does. Kind of scary if you think about it.:mad:

[trebblekicked]

I'll be bar hopping on Carson St. on game day. Anyone else? The south side's gonna be bedlam.

i can't even imagine. almost kills me not to be going back for that.

[Pittsax]

I feel you this time DHM... You know it's true. Corporations and Big Government will have a friend at the high court. Bush has another friendly ear on the court that selected him to the job in the first place. :(
Call me crazy, but this might end up helping shake up the government in the end. Say the court takes a shot at chipping away at Roe v. Wade. What do you think that will do to the women voters in terms of their votes come election time?

I'm just hoping I can find a way back to western PA in November so I can help vote out Santorum.

[atszyman]

Like I said, every candidate would have to get a certain number of signatures to get the public funding. After which they would have to play by the same rules as the rest of the candidates. If a corporation wanted to aid in a particular candidate to get the required signatures fine, but expect that bit of information to become fair game in the campaign when everyone is on equal turf. I have a feeling corporate sponsorship to get the signatures would become more of a liability in the regular election than it would be worth in obtaining the funding.

Another thought would be to actually use the Electoral College how it was intended. Have people campaign locally and have people actually vote for their EC representatives who would then gather and choose a president. No one would know who the presidential candidates were. You would select the Electors based on their agreement with your views. Since the campaigns would be local you'd even have a chance to get a better idea on where the electors stood and campaigning would happen everywhere unlike now where it's just the swing states.

That could solve the presidency but probably doesn't clean up Congress much.

[mactastic]

Call me crazy, but this might end up helping shake up the government in the end. Say the court takes a shot at chipping away at Roe v. Wade. What do you think that will do to the women voters in terms of their votes come election time?
I've touched on this in another thread, but I don't think Alito will provide the decisive vote to overturn Roe. He will bring the court from 6-3 for Roe to 5-4 for Roe. That said, he will work to erode the decision in Roe until it is essentially gutted.

Also, as you suggest, the Roves of the GOP know that if they really do overturn Roe someday they will likely be a minority party again for decades. Personally that's why I think Miers was nominated first, she was reliably pro-business and pro-government, but also was a hedge against Roe actually being overturned. Of course, the extreme right went nuts until her nomination was withdrawn and an anti-choice advocate was put forth who also has the requisite anti-consumer, pro-government Federalist positions.

[iDM]

I got excited to read and contribute to this thread from the OP with a couple hours of C-span under my belt and multiple-news articles from all over the place but after hearing neo-conserv evangelist christian silverback i am exhausted.

The straw that broke the camels back for me was when he said he'd like religion to be a larger part of government, i mean come on..........

[solvs]

The straw that broke the camels back for me was when he said he'd like religion to be a larger part of government, i mean come on..........
Yes but he's banned now. So we shall speak no more of it. What did you want to say? Even if it's somewhat conservative, most of us are willing to listen to opposing viewpoints as long as they are presented in a well thought out way and you are ready to back up your statements.

Of course, no one ever seems to argue with "Dems do nothing and they suck". :p

[iDM]

I've touched on this in another thread, but I don't think Alito will provide the decisive vote to overturn Roe. He will bring the court from 6-3 for Roe to 5-4 for Roe. That said, he will work to erode the decision in Roe until it is essentially gutted.

Also, as you suggest, the Roves of the GOP know that if they really do overturn Roe someday they will likely be a minority party again for decades. Personally that's why I think Miers was nominated first, she was reliably pro-business and pro-government, but also was a hedge against Roe actually being overturned. Of course, the extreme right went nuts until her nomination was withdrawn and an anti-choice advocate was put forth who also has the requisite anti-consumer, pro-government Federalist positions.

What will concern me is after RvW is gutted it will then be put into state control. We have already seen how so many states are on either side of the same sex marriage issue. If RvW is stripped down and put into the states hands all of the bible banging south and neo-conservative mid-west states will drop it as an option. Think of all the young scared teenagers who will then be forced to bring a child into this world then cannot be properly cared for. It's like when the conservatives don't want people using contraceptives. As if teaching students pre-marital sex is a sin is going to stop them and therefore they don't need to provide sex-ed or condoms, GIVE ME A BREAK. You can't tell me old G-Dub during his coke snorting, alcohol-abusing days wasn't sleeping with other women then the lovely first lady.

I have yet to figure out why a government has the right to say what and when a woman can do with their body, who a male or female can marry and whether or not school children hear certain religion in schools regardless of their faith(or why they should hear any religion for that matter).

I'm nervous because when a president with such far right views who makes subtle comments like "fighting abortion is a noble cause" for instance they then are able to elect LIFE TERM people to our highest court. I do not want my children to grow up in a country thats not accepting of everyone. It appears the only righteous way to happiness my children will see will be a conservative, white, evangelical christen lifestyle. The issue over whether he will recuse himself after the past debacle scares me as well.

I'd love to see the day when President Bushs daughters got pregnant out-of-wedlock and he himself came down with a disease only curable through stem-cell research. I would bet my top dollar he would regret his supreme court nominees then and be all for abortion, dumping a few billion of the taxpayers dollars towards the research.

One thing not mentioned is how an additional strong conservative justice is going to help Bush swing another crushing blow towards environmental regulations.

"Dems do nothing and they suck"

I am a dem and your right they do nothing, look at the last election. The Bush administration had a field day with how soft Kerry was on issues or at least how soft they wanted people to think he was. People wanted a hard hitting Christen man who was gonna fight terrorism no matter THE COSTS and fight abortion(regardless of how it truly effects REAL LIFE). Well so far terrorism has COST ALOT and we'll see how this nomination shakes the tree and what falls.

[mactastic]

What will concern me is after RvW is gutted it will then be put into state control. We have already seen how so many states are on either side of the same sex marriage issue. If RvW is stripped down and put into the states hands all of the bible banging south and neo-conservative mid-west states will drop it as an option. Think of all the young scared teenagers who will then be forced to bring a child into this world then cannot be properly cared for. It's like when the conservatives don't want people using contraceptives. As if teaching students pre-marital sex is a sin is going to stop them and therefore they don't need to provide sex-ed or condoms, GIVE ME A BREAK. You can't tell me old G-Dub during his coke snorting, alcohol-abusing days wasn't sleeping with other women then the lovely first lady.
In terms of state control, it would take a reversal of Roe to allow states total control over whether abortions are performed or not. However, there was a good article floating around recently talking about the problems women in places like South Dakota who only have one abortion provider in the state, and those doctors are flown in irregularly. Another instance in the south where a state with no in-state doctors willing to perform abortions is thinking of legislating that only doctors with state licenses (which require residency) would be permissible for an abortion doctor. These are the kinds of restrictions Alito could be expected to uphold.

One thing not mentioned is how an additional strong conservative justice is going to help Bush swing another crushing blow towards environmental regulations.
That falls under the category of 'business friendly'.

[solvs]

I am a dem and your right they do nothing, look at the last election.
Just helping to dispel the myth that everyone who hates Bush (especially everyone here) is a Democrat. I wouldn't consider myself a conservative, but I'm pretty far from the ultra leftist liberals that neocons want to paint us as. Actually, I'd say I'm more of a real conservative than Bush and his followers. They've just bastardized the term.

And I wish the Dems would fight more. They already pretend to be middle of the road, even though it's mostly because they don't seem to want to pick a side on anything. So much so that they won't even take a stand for their own base. I guess they figure they've already got the "anybody but them" vote. :rolleyes:

[Thomas Veil]

Well I am a Democrat and I get terribly frustrated with my party. Of course, most of "my" guys are either (a) bought out by special interests, or (b) more wishy-washy than Charlie Brown.

Only a very few, like Kucinich, take traditional liberal positions, defend them with conviction, and let the chips fall where they may. It's too bad because I think if the party would embrace those views, yes, the neocons would have a field say saying, "See?? We told you!! They're a bunch of radicals!"...but I think if they clearly explained their side to the public, without allowing the neocons to frame the debate, they'd be surprised to see that the public would agree with them.

Edit: then again, sometimes I think the public really is too stupid to vote in their own best interest, and I'm just a naive fool to believe otherwise.

[Sedulous]

Couldn't that lead to corporate sponsorship of candidates? Meaning that a corporation would choose a candidate, back him as surreptiously as possible and then have a corporate rubber stamper in place. I think there would have to be some clearly and sharply defined limits to the point where it might discourage a lot of candidates.

I have a better solution than term limits.

The house would be changed to reflect a courtroom. Essentially the senate election cycle would remain as it is, however, their job would change. The senate would write and debate laws, however they would not vote for/against laws. Instead, a jury of randomly selected citizens (not sure for how long they serve) consider the senate debate and vote for/against a bill. In this way, experienced law makers debate the virtues of a bill and a constantly cycling group of average citizens are selected to vote on the bill. Corporate scum would find it much more difficult to constantly bribe the "jury".

[Sedulous]

actually you don't rot in hell, you burn. you go for a nice swim in a lake of fire, but that's beside the point. Why is it selfish in your mind?

For those that still care, the bible actually says "the dead know nothing". The fiery hell we all know is yet another contrivance to scare people into doing the bidding of the church.

This is why the U.S. government should have nothing to do with religion. There is no reason for it and there is nothing to prevent a good "christian" from enjoying life if the government doesn't allow the pope to write our laws. Even Christ said to "be no part of this world" and to "give caesar's things to caesar and god's things to god". OK, your bible says gay marriage is bad... don't get married to a homosexual.

[skunk]

OK, your bible says gay marriage is bad... don't get married to a homosexual.The people who wrote your bible probably had an uncomfortable moment or two with their own sexuality. Scared them witless.

[iGary]

Scared them witless.

Damned right. First time I slept with a woman, it gave me the willies. :eek:

[pseudobrit]

Damned right. First time I slept with a woman, it gave me the willies. :eek:

They can treat that with antibiotics these days.

[skunk]

They can treat that with antibiotics these days.Is that the Anti-Life crew?

[Thomas Veil]

Hmm... http://www.webmd.com/thewillies gets me a 404 Error message.

Why do you suppose they'd cover up something like that? :confused:

[pseudobrit]

Is that the Anti-Life crew?

No, that's the neocons. Unless you're an embryo or zygote. Those are protected.

[skunk]

Hmm... http://www.webmd.com/thewillies gets me a 404 Error message.

Why do you suppose they'd cover up something like that? :confused:Modesty, I guess. Can't have too many of them uncovered at once...

[Thomas Veil]

Meanwhile, back at the topic...

It looks like Alito's going to be confirmed (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11058352/from/RSS/), no doubt about it.

[solvs]

It looks like Alito's going to be confirmed (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11058352/from/RSS/), no doubt about it.
To quote iGary, I think I just threw up in my mouth a little. Something about this guy rubs me the wrong way. Maybe it's the evil.

[stubeeef]

while frists' comments were a bit out of line, my favorite part of this process was teddy giving lectures on ethics, and his tyraid about getting those yale records locked down. The best thing that happened for the dems in that televised joke was getting it over so teddy wasn't making more a$$hats. The more he biden and whats his name ranted the better alito looked.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060117/ap_on_go_co/kennedy_club

WASHINGTON - Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), who criticized Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito's past membership in a controversial Princeton University alumni club, severed his ties Tuesday with a former Harvard college social club that bans women members.

ADVERTISEMENT

"He has decided to be taken off their rolls, believing that it is a mistake to continue to be affiliated," Kennedy spokeswoman Melissa Wagoner said in a statement.

The Massachusetts Democrat, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, grilled Alito during Senate confirmation hearing last week about Alito's ties to the Concerned Alumni of Princeton, an alumni group that opposed the admission of women and minorities at the Ivy League School.

A Washington Times story about Kennedy's Owl Club ties last week sparked criticism from Republicans who branded Kennedy a hypocrite.

Kennedy joined the Owl Club when he was a student at Harvard. Though not an active member since college, he donated about $100 to the club last October, his office said Tuesday.



Please keep teddy on the tv, he is better than watching people eat bugs on fear factor.:p

[solvs]

while frists' comments were a bit out of line, my favorite part of this process was teddy giving lectures on ethics
Typical. The fact that Ted is an asshat doesn't change how I feel about Alito. This should be about him, not how much the Dems suck. We already knew that. ;)

[stubeeef]

Typical. The fact that Ted is an asshat doesn't change how I feel about Alito. This should be about him, not how much the Dems suck. We already knew that. ;)

Well if it is about him, then lets remove ted the asshat and listen to this lady......
Bush also quoted one of Alito's former law clerks who later worked on the 2004 presidential campaign of Democratic Sen. John Kerry.

"She says this about Judge Alito: 'His approach to judging is not about personal ideology or ambition but about hard work and devotion to law and justice."'

This is interesting stuff to rebuke, cause few will accept it, but hey, you never know?

Bush, in his weekly radio address, quoted Pennsylvania Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell as saying he was displeased with the partisan way some fellow Democrats had handled Alito's confirmation process.

Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd (news, bio, voting record) of West Virginia has announced he would vote for Alito, the Republican president said.

"And he said that many people in his state were calling the treatment of Judge Alito by some Democrats 'an outrage and a disgrace."'

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060128/pl_nm/usa_court_bush_dc

[Thomas Veil]

I hope the law clerk's estimation of Alito turns out to be true. Of course, it'll be a significant change for him from his record....

As far as some West Virginians being appalled at Alito's treatment by Democrats...what exactly does that tell us?

And if these same people are "outraged" at the Democrats' questioning, I imagine they must be simply furious about Bush's various lies and deceptions.

[IJ Reilly]

Just to be clear, the Democratic leadership in the Senate is not backing extending debate on the Alito nomination. I think they and not the senators from Massachusetts have the right idea -- make the speeches, take the vote. Just remember to remind Americans a few years down the road when Justice Alito starts voting in ways he claimed he would not, overturning precedents that don't suit his ideology and siding with business over individuals at every opportunity.

[Sedulous]

while frists' comments were a bit out of line, my favorite part of this process was teddy giving lectures on ethics, and his tyraid about getting those yale records locked down. The best thing that happened for the dems in that televised joke was getting it over so teddy wasn't making more a$$hats. The more he biden and whats his name ranted the better alito looked.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060117/ap_on_go_co/kennedy_club

Please keep teddy on the tv, he is better than watching people eat bugs on fear factor.:p

There is a big difference between a club that doesn't admit women and a club that thinks women are subservient and undeserving of an education. There is nothing inherently evil about men's only clubs, so long as their purpose isn't to degrade others.

[Sedulous]

I for one applaud John Kerry's efforts. We need leadership now. These guys need to stop worrying about political capital and strategy. When was the last time we had a man of character who inspired hope in the White House? It seems the president's job is to keep lowering expectations so there is no hope; that way we can't be disappointed.

[Sedulous]

Just to be clear, the Democratic leadership in the Senate is not backing extending debate on the Alito nomination. I think they and not the senators from Massachusetts have the right idea -- make the speeches, take the vote. Just remember to remind Americans a few years down the road when Justice Alito starts voting in ways he claimed he would not, overturning precedents that don't suit his ideology and siding with business over individuals at every opportunity.

You my friend, give us too much credit. Of all people, Americans have the shortest memory for this kind of thing and will not care, much less take the time to listen to "stories". A large percentage of Americans still believe Iraq attacked the U.S. on 9-11.

As far as I am concerned, Alito was being interviewed for a job. He should be expected to answer questions and until he does, he doesn't get the job. Answer the damn questions!

[stubeeef]

As far as I am concerned, Alito was being interviewed for a job. He should be expected to answer questions and until he does, he doesn't get the job. Answer the damn questions!

Well you must be very upset, furious even, when ginsburg didn't answer how she would vote on abortion. I bet you wanted her to answer the damn question or she doesn't get the job!:rolleyes:

[stubeeef]

I for one applaud John Kerry's efforts. We need leadership now. These guys need to stop worrying about political capital and strategy. When was the last time we had a man of character who inspired hope in the White House? It seems the president's job is to keep lowering expectations so there is no hope; that way we can't be disappointed.

I agree, everytime he does a stunt like call for a filabuster from an European Ski Slope, or stand up and talk about almost anything, it just makes the GOP look that much better. I wish he would get a tv show during primetime!

[stubeeef]

There is a big difference between a club that doesn't admit women and a club that thinks women are subservient and undeserving of an education. There is nothing inherently evil about men's only clubs, so long as their purpose isn't to degrade others.

Then why did he quickly withdraw?

Justify his hypocritical rants form delusion land, but the rest of us see right through him, I wish he would co-host the kerry show during primetime!

[Sedulous]

Well you must be very upset, furious even, when ginsburg didn't answer how she would vote on abortion. I bet you wanted her to answer the damn question or she doesn't get the job!:rolleyes:

Ginsburg was before my time. What is wrong with expecting people to answer questions in a clear manner during an interview? Until the interview is over, no job. That is my opinion, and I hope his nomination is blocked until questions have been answered.

[Sedulous]

I agree, everytime he does a stunt like call for a filabuster from an European Ski Slope, or stand up and talk about almost anything, it just makes the GOP look that much better. I wish he would get a tv show during primetime!

Yes, it is a terrible thing that Kerry actually participates in world politics and economic forums (that is why he was in Switzerland; believe it or not, there is more in Switzerland than skiing). Funny you should criticize someone willing to leave the Alps to do work. Bush could barely be asked to stop his vacation to be the president.

[Sedulous]

Then why did he quickly withdraw?

Justify his hypocritical rants form delusion land, but the rest of us see right through him, I wish he would co-host the kerry show during primetime!

I don't know, could fear of Rovian spin have Kennedy running scared? I don't blame him for breaking ties with a social club that does not admit women. My point was that there is a difference between a men's only club and an organization whose purpose is to degrade others.

Quit the stupid spin, it isn't funny, informative, or useful.

[stubeeef]

Ginsburg was before my time. What is wrong with expecting people to answer questions in a clear manner during an interview? Until the interview is over, no job. That is my opinion, and I hope his nomination is blocked until questions have been answered.

Ginsburg was a trailblazer alright, now we have a...
Precendent

Yes, it is a terrible thing that Kerry actually participates in world politics and economic forums (that is why he was in Switzerland; believe it or not, there is more in Switzerland than skiing). Funny you should criticize someone willing to leave the Alps to do work. Bush could barely be asked to stop his vacation to be the president.

CNN Fact Check: Official records confirm that Sen John Kerry attended 11 out of 49 public committee meetings from 1993 through January 2001, for an absentee rate of 78%. President Bush's campaign credits Kerry for attending another public meeting in June 1999, although official records do not indicate exactly who attended. Assuming Kerry did attend this 12th meeting, his absentee rate would be 76%, as the Bush campaign claims. The Kerry campaign says that most of the committee meetings are closed and that attendance records are not public, suggesting that his attendance rate could be higher if closed meetings were included in the tally. However, Kerry himself could authorize the committee to release his attendance records for closed meetings, but has not done so.

I don't know, could fear of Rovian spin have Kennedy running scared? I don't blame him for breaking ties with a social club that does not admit women. My point was that there is a difference between a men's only club and an organization whose purpose is to degrade others.

Quit the stupid spin, it isn't funny, informative, or useful.

Oh my, I am not spinning anything but fact. Ted is a whacko. I think trying to split some fine hairs on which club of blue blood boys clubs is more ethical is spin.

[IJ Reilly]

You my friend, give us too much credit. Of all people, Americans have the shortest memory for this kind of thing and will not care, much less take the time to listen to "stories". A large percentage of Americans still believe Iraq attacked the U.S. on 9-11.

As far as I am concerned, Alito was being interviewed for a job. He should be expected to answer questions and until he does, he doesn't get the job. Answer the damn questions!

Perhaps, but it is not the Senate's job to compensate for our cultural lack of attention span. And no matter what you might think, I believe Americans do indeed care about how the Supreme Court decides at least some of the matters that come before it. Just wait, if they overturn Roe. You'll see a whole lot of caring then.

As for answering questions, I suspect we are long past the day when nominees to the Supreme Court will proffer any more views than required to get ten votes on the committee. From now on, they will all play Alito's hard-to-get game. In Alito's case, I think we knew everything we were going to know from his political record. He is a right wing True Believer of the first order.

[Sedulous]

Precendent

Oh my, I am not spinning anything but fact. Ted is a whacko. I think trying to split some fine hairs on which club of blue blood boys clubs is more ethical is spin.

I did point out that my statement on Alito being asked questions was only my opinion, and apparently not a law. No precedent!

No, facts are facts. Spin is Spin. You see, I use the men's bathroom. It is men's only. Does that mean I hate women? No, of course not. However joining a club whose sole purpose is to ridicule minorities and women is somehow different from my bathroom adventure.

Ted Kennedy may be a whacko, but at least he is attempting to lead instead of twiddling his thumbs as many of our elected representatives seem to do. "Oh yes, lets give George more power, no make it UNLIMITED POWER. George has done a great job so far and has proven he can be trusted. By gosh, things are so much better than they were five years ago!"

[stubeeef]

I did point out that my statement on Alito being asked questions was only my opinion, and apparently not a law. No precedent!

No, facts are facts. Spin is Spin. You see, I use the men's bathroom. It is men's only. Does that mean I hate women? No, of course not. However joining a club whose sole purpose is to ridicule minorities and women is somehow different from my bathroom adventure.

Ted Kennedy may be a whacko, but at least he is attempting to lead instead of twiddling his thumbs as many of our elected representatives seem to do. "Oh yes, lets give George more power, no make it UNLIMITED POWER. George has done a great job so far and has proven he can be trusted. By gosh, things are so much better than they were five years ago!"
Precedent does not mean a law!?
:confused:

I have seen many women in mens rooms. Is it against the law for a women to be in a mens room? Interesting.

There are many a problem I have with the present admin, but because we are not in long gas lines, and there isn't food rationing, many forget we are at war. Fact not spin. Somethings are going to get done, and I have no problem with them, others may, and maybe rightfully, we are going to see.
Clinton broke the law, was impeached, and remained president. I could see the same happeing with this scenario. If these cases could have been given the judical rubber stamp in a post listening enviornment, then really they are guilty of not finishing the paper work, but then again.....

[Sedulous]

Precedent does not mean a law!?
:confused:

I have seen many women in mens rooms. Is it against the law for a women to be in a mens room? Interesting.

There are many a problem I have with the present admin, but because we are not in long gas lines, and there isn't food rationing, many forget we are at war. Fact not spin. Somethings are going to get done, and I have no problem with them, others may, and maybe rightfully, we are going to see.
Clinton broke the law, was impeached, and remained president. I could see the same happeing with this scenario. If these cases could have been given the judical rubber stamp in a post listening enviornment, then really they are guilty of not finishing the paper work, but then again.....

"No precedent" because I was expressing my own opinion on what should be expected of an interview... not something based on laws.

Actually, I believe it is generally frowned upon for a man to walk into a women's restroom. Just as it would be for a woman to walk into a men's only club. Either case, depending on it was handled, could lead to an arrest.

Yes, Clinton broke the law because he didn't want to answer a question about a very personal part of his life. And let me ask you, this is what they got on Clinton after pulling 250 FBI agents off regular duty, $90 million dollars, and several years of investigation? You ask me, those 250 agents should have been answering phone calls from concerned flight school instructors, not looking for the most mundane things to make a popular president look bad.

It is a sad day when one thinks a government is doing well because we don't have long lines for food. You are right, we don't have rationing, but then again, this war in Iraq isn't really about the right to exist, like WWII. Iraq obviously was never a threat, never attacked us, and didn't have the means (or will) to attack us. However, you continue to support this corrupt steaming pile of crap government... we will have soviet era style lines for bread.

[Sedulous]

I have seen many women in mens rooms. Is it against the law for a women to be in a mens room? Interesting.

I call hyperbole... or you had taken the wrong door.

[stubeeef]

"No precedent" because I was expressing my own opinion on what should be expected of an interview... not something based on laws.

Actually, I believe it is generally frowned upon for a man to walk into a women's restroom. Just as it would be for a woman to walk into a men's only club. Either case, depending on it was handled, could lead to an arrest.

Yes, Clinton broke the law because he didn't want to answer a question about a very personal part of his life.

It is a sad day when one thinks a government is doing well because we don't have long lines for food. You are right, we don't have rationing, but then again, this war in Iraq isn't really about the right to exist, like WWII. Iraq obviously was never a threat, never attacked us, and didn't have the means (or will) to attack us. However, you continue to support this corrupt steaming pile of crap government... we will have soviet era style lines for bread.

Excellent spin!
:p

First off in other wars the locals "got it" when they were without. Not being without we, as a what have you done for me in the last 30 seconds, society forget what is at stake.
Second, bushCo will not remain in office as of the next election, so don't forsee an empire (hyperbole).
Iraq was percieved as a threat, even kerry while on the intell committe (well offically if not physically) went on a sunday talk show and said we should remove saddam, during the Clinton admin. Who contrived that intell? It was before W was even around and Clinton had his boyz in charge!

[Sedulous]

Excellent spin!
:p

First off in other wars the locals "got it" when they were without. Not being without we, as a what have you done for me in the last 30 seconds, society forget what is at stake.
Second, bushCo will not remain in office as of the next election, so don't forsee an empire (hyperbole).
Iraq was percieved as a threat, even kerry while on the intell committe (well offically if not physically) went on a sunday talk show and said we should remove saddam, during the Clinton admin. Who contrived that intell? It was before W was even around and Clinton had his boyz in charge!

You've lost me. Locals?

Why does Bushco need to leave office? Who says there will be any more elections? Didn't you know, we are at war! What is to prevent Bush from suspending law? There was a time when these kind of statements would have been made jokingly. Alito and Roberts certainly could do their part to make that happen.

Saddam was never a threat, they knew that. Kerry didn't bring us into this war, so let us stop pointing fingers the wrong way. You see Bush just cut funding for National Guard? Does this sound like a move to protect us from those evil doers or a way to dump more money into Haliburton? We've dumped nearly $500,000,000,000 into Iraq. Say it with me, Five Hundred Billion Dollars. That seems an awful lot for nothing.

Oh, and Kerry was right, we should have gotten Saddam while he was still on the run at the end of Gulf War 1: "Just the Start". Once Saddam was contained, well that is a different ball game.

[Ugg]

Excellent spin!
:p

First off in other wars the locals "got it" when they were without. Not being without we, as a what have you done for me in the last 30 seconds, society forget what is at stake.
Second, bushCo will not remain in office as of the next election, so don't forsee an empire (hyperbole).
Iraq was percieved as a threat, even kerry while on the intell committe (well offically if not physically) went on a sunday talk show and said we should remove saddam, during the Clinton admin. Who contrived that intell? It was before W was even around and Clinton had his boyz in charge!

I think few would disagree with Saddam's ouster. What most people find absolutely reprehensible is how it was done. There was a total and utter disregard for the Iraqi people. This disregarding the people that were to be "saved" from Saddam has meant that thousands have died for no other reason than the Pentagon and the WH were unwilling to plan for an occupation. Any idiot could see that a repressed society like Iraq was going to implode after the war. Why couldn't they at least have planned to close the borders. And what was Bremer thinking of when he dismissed the enitre military. Much less the fact that the country is being sold out from under the Iraqi People's feet.

What bushco has done is taken a good cause and made it into one of the greatest military fiascos of the last hundred years. You should be ashamed for your inability to see that bush was bent only on revenge and securing the Iraqi oil fields. Patriotism my ass, it's nothing more than being blinded by the spin doctors in the WH. Rove of course has proven his mettle by putting his party above the safety and security of American citizens.

[stubeeef]

You've lost me. Locals?

Why does Bushco need to leave office? Who says there will be any more elections? Didn't you know, we are at war! What is to prevent Bush from suspending law? There was a time when these kind of statements would have been made jokingly. Alito and Roberts certainly could do their part to make that happen.

Saddam was never a threat, they knew that. Kerry didn't bring us into this war, so let us stop pointing fingers the wrong way. You see Bush just cut funding for National Guard? Does this sound like a move to protect us from those evil doers or a way to dump more money into Haliburton? We've dumped nearly $500,000,000,000 into Iraq. Say it with me, Five Hundred Billion Dollars. That seems an awful lot for nothing.

Oh, and Kerry was right, we should have gotten Saddam while he was still on the run at the end of Gulf War 1: "Just the Start". Once Saddam was contained, well that is a different ball game.

locals = US citizens
HMMM bushco went through one election since the invasion, and we don't need to work ourselves in to delusional paranoia.
Bush got us in to this war, and marching right behind was nearly the entire congress. Kerry's comments were post GulfWar1 by over 5 years.
$500000000000, is too much mulah! but not for nothing.

[Thomas Veil]

While being on your side, Sedulous, I don't know that I'd agree that Saddam was not a threat. But he was a controlled one, as weapons inspectors' reports bore out.

I also don't know that we should've taken Saddam out after the Gulf War. That would've been satisfying, but we had (AFAIK) no plan to fill the void. We probably would've faced the same chaotic situation we're facing now in Iraq.

At least Daddy Bush had the sense to recognize that. Would that the son were even 1/10th as bright.

Good point, though, about Bush having a clear field to declare martial law. That is, right now, what Americans who are paying attention are afraid of.

Whoopee, Kerry claimed that we should've gotten rid of Saddam back in Clinton's administration. Did he advocate war on Iraq as the means? Did he say we should do it before we knew exactly how we were going to fill the power void?

[Sedulous]

locals = US citizens
HMMM bushco went through one election since the invasion, and we don't need to work ourselves in to delusional paranoia.
Bush got us in to this war, and marching right behind was nearly the entire congress. Kerry's comments were post GulfWar1 by over 5 years.
$500000000000, is too much mulah! but not for nothing.

Yes, yes, we had one election that was somehow decided by the supreme court. We all know which way that went, and that was before Bush had his two boys in there. Or maybe we get Jeb as our next puppet leader installed at the whim of a decidedly Bush heavy supreme court.

If I were in congress and George told me that he has very convincing, irrefutable evidence that Saddam had nuke bombs all wrapped up for Osama, I would have voted just as the rest of the congress did. Unfortunately, what Bush didn't tell us, or congress, was that his "evidence" was all crap. The real intelligence, which constituted the bulk of what was available at the time, was conveniently ignored. Admit it, this is the Bush way. Be it discrediting a top NASA scientist about global warming, shoving an honorable man like McCain into the dirt by questioning his sanity, or ignoring the rest of the world, George W. Bush knows one thing: You are either with him, or you are an enemy.

[Sedulous]

locals = US citizens
HMMM bushco went through one election since the invasion, and we don't need to work ourselves in to delusional paranoia.
Bush got us in to this war, and marching right behind was nearly the entire congress. Kerry's comments were post GulfWar1 by over 5 years.
$500000000000, is too much mulah! but not for nothing.

And as far as intelligence goes, see for yourself. This following link is very interesting, and written by some of your favorite characters:

http://newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Long before Cheney and his gang of wingnuts were privvy to military intelligence, THEY KNEW Saddam was up to no good. These guys knew better than a sitting president that Saddam needed to be taken out. Gee-whiz, I wonder.

[Sedulous]

While being on your side, Sedulous, I don't know that I'd agree that Saddam was not a threat. But he was a controlled one, as weapons inspectors' reports bore out.

I also don't know that we should've taken Saddam out after the Gulf War. That would've been satisfying, but we had (AFAIK) no plan to fill the void. We probably would've faced the same chaotic situation we're facing now in Iraq.

At least Daddy Bush had the sense to recognize that. Would that the son were even 1/10th as bright.

Good point, though, about Bush having a clear field to declare martial law. That is, right now, what Americans who are paying attention are afraid of.

Whoopee, Kerry claimed that we should've gotten rid of Saddam back in Clinton's administration. Did he advocate war on Iraq as the means? Did he say we should do it before we knew exactly how we were going to fill the power void?

Oh, I totally agree. George knows no bounds on presidential power. Show me where the oft cited "executive priviledge" can be found anywhere in law. These guys just make up the laws as they go.

[IJ Reilly]

Oh, I totally agree. George knows no bounds on presidential power. Show me where the oft cited "executive priviledge" can be found anywhere in law. These guys just make up the laws as they go.

Executive privilege does exist, but is being pushed further and further by the Bush administration to cover anything they don't want to reveal for any reason. (Information on the White House response to Katrina? Nope, executive privilege!) Even Nixon was arguably more circumspect in claiming an expansive privilege than this gang, and he was known as the inventor of the "imperial presidency."

[Sedulous]

Executive privilege does exist, but is being pushed further and further by the Bush administration to cover anything they don't want to reveal for any reason. (Information on the White House response to Katrina? Nope, executive privilege!) Even Nixon was arguably more circumspect in claiming an expansive privilege than this gang, and he was known as the inventor of the "imperial presidency."

I guess I just don't understand why some people are so eager to give up their rights for a president that spends more time on vacation than doing his job. That is the magic of George Bush. The man campaigned as an outsider in 2000. A multi-millionaire, Harvard/Yale educated son of a former president is an outsider? And the lies, misleading statements, and obfuscations don't seem to matter either. The appoinment of Alito is just another nail in the coffin. Perhaps it is because as a society, we've become one that refuses to take responsibility. Or maybe the endless work to maintain a reasonable life has left us too tired to defend "esoteric" laws that somehow once protected us from predatory governing and corporate abuses.

[Sedulous]

While being on your side, Sedulous, I don't know that I'd agree that Saddam was not a threat. But he was a controlled one, as weapons inspectors' reports bore out.

I also don't know that we should've taken Saddam out after the Gulf War. That would've been satisfying, but we had (AFAIK) no plan to fill the void. We probably would've faced the same chaotic situation we're facing now in Iraq.

At least Daddy Bush had the sense to recognize that. Would that the son were even 1/10th as bright.

Good point, though, about Bush having a clear field to declare martial law. That is, right now, what Americans who are paying attention are afraid of.

Whoopee, Kerry claimed that we should've gotten rid of Saddam back in Clinton's administration. Did he advocate war on Iraq as the means? Did he say we should do it before we knew exactly how we were going to fill the power void?

Well, would you argue Saddam was a bigger threat than North Korea? You do realize North Korea is just a short missile flight from where most of our Macs are built?

Saddam was never a threat. He had no competent airforce or navy. He certainly would be unlikely to ally with Osama. Osama's brand of theocracy was as much in conflict with Saddam's rule as it is here in the U.S. (although neo-cons would love a christian theocracy). Most of the potent weapons (including chemical and biological) were sold to Saddam by the U.S... many of which nolonger functioned reliably.

Yes, weapons do have shelf lives. Good thing too, otherwise all those shoulder-fired heat seeking stinger missles we gave to Osama back in the 80's would be used against us today.

[solvs]

Well you must be very upset, furious even, when ginsburg didn't answer how she would vote on abortion. I bet you wanted her to answer the damn question or she doesn't get the job!:rolleyes:
Actually... yeah. Before my time as well, but if she were up today as a nominee, I would want her to answer truthfully. Roberts played the same angles, and in his last vote he went right along with party lines. Too bad, because I was actually hoping he'd be a little more moderate.

And yes, Clinton lied. Kennedy is a drunken louse. Kerry is a douche. I still don't get how that makes Bush or Alito any better for doing the same crap. Worse even in Bush's case. If you're only argument is "Dems are almost as bad", well that doesn't really work now, does it?

[IJ Reilly]

I guess I just don't understand why some people are so eager to give up their rights for a president that spends more time on vacation than doing his job. That is the magic of George Bush. The man campaigned as an outsider in 2000. A multi-millionaire, Harvard/Yale educated son of a former president is an outsider? And the lies, misleading statements, and obfuscations don't seem to matter either. The appoinment of Alito is just another nail in the coffin. Perhaps it is because as a society, we've become one that refuses to take responsibility. Or maybe the endless work to maintain a reasonable life has left us too tired to defend "esoteric" laws that somehow once protected us from predatory governing and corporate abuses.

Well you got me, but an approval rate stuck in the 40s isn't exactly magical territory, and the White House knows it. Their current strategy appears to be a two step process:

1- The President is always right.
2- If the President isn't right, refer to step 1.

By these means, I suppose the administration hopes to conserve the support of the minority of Americans who'd approve of his job performance no matter what he's done, and to hell with everybody else. This is what I was thinking as I watched his press conference the other day. He said nothing of substance, but looked affable and determined doing it -- so 40% of Americans can be counted upon to not notice the contradictions and lack of substance in his actual answers.

[mactastic]

Well he hasn't spent more time on vacation than working, but IIRC he has managed to out-vacation his idol Reagan easily.

[Thomas Veil]

Well, would you argue Saddam was a bigger threat than North Korea? You do realize North Korea is just a short missile flight from where most of our Macs are built?No, of course I'd agree that NK is a bigger threat. So is Iran. Those are hardly "contained" threats. These jokers are running around doing whatever the hell they please in violation of international law and basic human decency.

(Hmm...that kind of describes another country I know. No, wait just a minute...it's on the tip of my tongue.... ;) )

[Sedulous]

Well he hasn't spent more time on vacation than working, but IIRC he has managed to out-vacation his idol Reagan easily.

Fair enough, but it certainly is true he has enjoyed more vacation than the average american. I believe on average we get roughly 2 weeks a year. Bush has spent nearly a 1/3 of his first five years on vacation.

[mactastic]

NK is easily the bigger threat. We're pretty sure they have a handful of nu-cu-lar weapons -- not a good legacy for a president who agreed with John Kerry that nu-cu-lar proliferation was the biggest threat we faced.

NK has access to plutonium from their reactors that were under seal until Bush took office. Sure they were gaming their uranium reactors, but that is a hugely time and energy consuming way to make a nu-cu-lar bomb. The plutonium makes it so much easier.

Iran is looking at working with uranium processing as well, but unlike NK, they have the electrical capacity to run the massive amounts of equipment necessary to produce fissile material from uranium. Thus, it isn't a matter of if, it's a matter of when and on what terms. We've accepted Pakistan into the nu-cu-lar club, why not Iran? Will they hand weapons off to terrorists? Not likely. The regime knows they would face nu-cu-lar retaliation from the US if they were caught -- and they would be caught. No one doubts that a nu-cu-lar weapon can be traced pretty easily. So will they use nu-cu-lar blackmail over oil? Maybe, but despite their threat to open their oil market in Euros (the bigger threat if you ask me) they want our money as much as anyone else does. They have little interest in nu-cu-lar blackmail in terms of crippling the US oil market. Most of their business folk would like to make money off us, just as ours would off them.

So what's the threat? How does a nu-cu-lar Iran pose any threat to us that a nu-cu-lar Pakistan does not? Reminders that even a nu-cu-lar payload has to be put aboard either an ICBM or a submarine that can operate off our coasts to be considered a significant strategic threat.

Just some thoughts. NK worries me a whole lot more than Iran.