Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Nov 28, 2004.
It seems that the Republicans are thinking they will have control of the White House and the Capital for the end of time. Very shorted sighted rule changes that will come back and bite them big time.
Um, no...that's the Constitution at work.
Republicans sure had no problem with this procedure when it was they who were blocking Bill Clinton's nominees.
And if Cheney tries to declare himself dictator of the Senate, you bet your sweet a** this'll go to the Supreme Court. (Not that I have any confidence in that institution either when push comes to shove.)
I guess then that it was OK when Sen Harkin and Sen Lieberman proposed to eliminate the filibuster in 1995, and it was held in stay by Sen Dole.
All that glitters is not gold.
ANY attempt to eliminate the checks and balances of our government are ill-conceived, regardless of party affiliation.
so, you guessed wrong.
Just be thankful that there was a conservative republican to coral those wacky democrats in 95!
In a move so quiet no one remembered it, two Democrats floated the idea of removing the filibuster. It obviously was not taken into serious consideration as it lacked support from the party and public, as well as media. I am sure someone else here would have heard about it before it hit the AM wavelengths in defense of what is being proposed now.
But since two Democrats tried it once, it is now ok for the Republicans to undertake a serious effort to make this happen. That kind of logic works for those who care little about Democracy and more about fulfilling their own vision of how they would like the country to be.
I like the point made about ruling from the bench in order to stop ruling from the bench. It is a succinct and astutely made point.
However, that old dead horse is being whipped again as the public reaction to this will be subdued at best. Those destined to be most negatively affected by moves like this are too a large degree calmed by the GOP salesmen who spin it in a positive way daily. A victory against liberals they will call this, those liberals, the root of all of your discontent.
X, that was beautiful! (applause)
You should be a pro-spinner, cause you are goood!
Mr. Boortz, is that you?
You wanna know why you get jumped on around here? Its because of smarmy comments lacking in substance, just like this one.
What an uplifting site! From their about page:
Look around you, Stu. Look at the ideological hypocracy that is so pervasive in most politicians these days. Do you really think that this overblown generalization is more applicable to liberals than it is to conservatives? Are conservatives REALLY the knights in shining armour while liberals are lying traitors to the flag?
Do you really think this rhetoric helps? Do you really think this website is doing a service to our country or our system of government?
-Kill the filibuster.
-Insert partisan judges.
Anyone else see the connections and the aim?
They're burning the Reichstag.
Recent beuts from this website, ......
"how a majority of americans could goose-step behind this near fascism is even further beyond me."
"I can't help blaming the neo-cons for that, and if there is one single evil influence that is driving apart America, I think it is that the Republican party has pretty much been taken over by its nutcases."
"Drunk with power indeed. Just plain evil."
"From the desk of our illustrious leader, the respected and pious Dubya"
"indeed. i forget, what's the timetable for bush to have the military take a loyalty oath to him personally?"
And of course this great example of enlightened discourse..
Some of those are pretty extremist. I also acknoledge the fact that there are many extremist leftist websites out there. And I probably should hold all of them to the same standard I hold you (we should all probably work on that one). But is any of that an excuse for YOUR lapses in civil discourse? Or is this the equivalent of a cable "news" screaming match, where no low-blow can go unanswered and the "winner" is the most obnoxious.
The high road is now overgrown, but it is begging for some traffic. May I humbly suggest we take that less-beaten path.
You are very correct in many ways. But, as no one else thought it mattered with each other, I too have fallen. I will attempt to be a good'un.
Just do me one tiny favor, point that shiney, ever so bright light at ALL that transgress please. As I have no excuse, so is there not one for most here, taft included.
Those are the worst you can find?
Considering his actions I think they are being nice, not inaccurate.
Not at all, If you would like I will look for more than the 5 minutes it took me to get them.
I consider them sophmoric at best, idiotic atleast, extremist as usual.
Taft thought little of them, maybe the two of you can chew on it some too.
Sorry, but the Republicans are reaping what they have sowed. They did nothing to stop the likes of Limbaugh spewing "hateful themes". So is it surprising that Democrats, including myself, are now giving back the same?
I am sure that you will remind me of recent Democratic actions that seem to have set back the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as Bush and the his fellow Republicans seem to have done so far.
Maybe you can expand on the "good" that G. W. Bush has given the US and the world. So this way we might see a different side of the man, than what we have seen and expanded on in somewhat negative ways.
I was hoping for some sweeping generalizations attacking conservative ideology en masse. Not ones that distinguish Bush as being a radical within his own party who has aligned himself with other radicals.
Maybe some suggestions of violence against Bush style conservatives.
Considerably more examples of pure ad hominem attacks.
Maybe some handy misquotes showing how Bush style conservatives are evil and lying to prove it doesn't matter.
Maybe some links to websites that just attack Bush styles conservatives ideology endlessly based on flimsy evidence and questionable logic?
Oh, NeoCon is not an insult, however derisively it is stated sometimes. NeoCon is a term coined by many within Bushs Administration who direct policy and have decided that a new approach was needed.
I think it helps distinguish the fact that there is a difference within the republican party.
women voting in Afghanistan!
I was not the one complaining about the tone of the forum, taft was. I simply tried to show him a mirror. He is correct in what he says, only I doubt few here will change. How about you chipster-you think those here are a bit juvenile in there expression? If so do you think you need to take a higher road? Or do you think that taft is wrong?
Have you read this book Stu?
How to talk to a Liberal (if you must)
Her other books, Slander and Treason, are just as vitriolic.
Or this book?
Deliver us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism.
His other books are also very mature.
Maybe this book
The Enemy Within: Saving America from the Liberal Assault on Our Schools, Faith, and Military.
It's blatantly hypocritical to call other immature for doing exactly what you have been doing. And if you wanted to clean things up, I would start with the whole GOP media machine.
It's all well and good to challenge each other to take the high road in our debates, but I think it undoes any good which might result to pose this challenge as a taunt. FWIW, I'm not picking on anyone in particular here, just noting it as a general trend.
Customers who bought those books also bought this one...
The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands
Makes them sounds like pets or something.
Hey, if things are going so well in Afghanistan, why are they again the leading producer of Heroin who need an occupying force there to keep law and order?
Unfortunately the way the question was originally asked allowed the answer to distort the issues. Yes, women can vote in Afghanistan now, but only the women (and men) who aren't in the position to be intimidated by the thugs and warlords who are the de-facto government in most the country.