Super 8 Posted November 13, 2003 Share Posted November 13, 2003 Johnny, For some reason I question the substance behind your allegations. One thing I don't question is your willingness to believe something like the notion that the administration is DELIBERATELY POISONING people's drinking water. Can you support these claims? Can you provide a transcript of Al Gore actually saying that Ashcroft, Bush and Cheney are 'Un-American traitors'? Super 8 Hear my stuff here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alcohol_ Posted November 13, 2003 Share Posted November 13, 2003 Super8 Please don't take another hissy fit.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bitch Posted November 13, 2003 Share Posted November 13, 2003 We are waiting johnny. :freak: As if we are gonna get a response other than BUSH SUX and so do you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick K. Posted November 13, 2003 Share Posted November 13, 2003 [quote]Originally posted by Johnny B: [b]...the honorable Al Gore...[/b][/quote]:D I got that one!! :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Johnny B Posted November 13, 2003 Author Share Posted November 13, 2003 You just need to watch CSPAN a little more, I got CSPAN1 and CSPAN2 on my cable system. You get to see both the Democrats and Repubilicans debate, then they sometimes broadcast a seminar or pannel discussion, sometimes it's a press conference, and sometimes it's about an author and their particular view of the world. It's pretty balanced, IMHO. Someone earlier posted a link of the stuff about Bush and Cheney's decision to poison Americans. So I feel totally confortable with repeating the charges that Bush, Cheney, and Asscroft are traitors and have commtied treason againt the American people. They should be tried and convicted just like other criminal scumbags. And these dirty, filthy criminals, upon conviction, should get just what they deserve: a life sentence in a maximum security prison. A jury could legally give them the death penalty for treason, but I don't personally favor that. A life sentence in a maximum security prison should be enough to satisfy the legal requirements of justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneinaPond Posted November 13, 2003 Share Posted November 13, 2003 [quote]Someone earlier posted a link of the stuff about Bush and Cheney's decision to poison Americans. So I feel totally confortable with repeating the charges that Bush, Cheney, and Asscroft are traitors and have commtied treason againt the American people. [/quote]While I am not bothered by your style of posting, and to some extent agree with much of what you say, this is a legless argument unless you can substantiate it. You have not done so. Yorik Stone In A Pond "Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bitch Posted November 13, 2003 Share Posted November 13, 2003 Watch C-span tonight. The 30 hour session ends at midnight. They should be good and grumpy by then. Robert Byrd is a show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super 8 Posted November 13, 2003 Share Posted November 13, 2003 [quote]Originally posted by alcohol_: [b]Super8 Please don't take another hissy fit..[/b][/quote]Good advice from a seasoned pro. :p :p :p Super 8 Hear my stuff here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Johnny B Posted November 14, 2003 Author Share Posted November 14, 2003 The current deal on one CSPAN channel is the Dem's blocking some extremists from being on the courts. The dems seem to have some good evidence that this current crop of nominees have engaged in egregious judical activism. Anyway, there's nothing new about either side blocking the other from stacking the courts. The scary part is that this crop would probably uphold Bush, Cheney, and Asscroft's plan to take awy even more of your rights. Warrantless searches, refusal to allow jailed suspects to even talk to defense counsel or their families, and just locking people up unlimited periods without any knind of judical hearing or trial, and guess what, that's really Un-American. Bush, Cheney and Asscroft are Un-American traitors and have declared war on the citizens of America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bitch Posted November 14, 2003 Share Posted November 14, 2003 You can even spin c-span. Your good. :thu: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Johnny B Posted November 14, 2003 Author Share Posted November 14, 2003 Hey. I'm the best. I can play pretty good too. I wish I were pretty and had tons of girls drooling over me, but them days are long gone. LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mats Olsson. Posted November 14, 2003 Share Posted November 14, 2003 The wishing days are gone? Thanks for clearing that up, explains a lot. /Mats http://www.lexam.net/peter/carnut/man.gif What do we want? Procrastination! When do we want it? Later! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Moore Posted November 14, 2003 Share Posted November 14, 2003 I hear they are going another eight hours on top of that now, will be at it 'till the morning. And we all KNOW there has never been any judicial activism from left wing judges. Its a strange world indeed when upholding the constitution is branded as activism, and inventing law from the bench is accepted as jurists prudence. Chuck Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alcohol_ Posted November 14, 2003 Share Posted November 14, 2003 The Dems have a right to voice their opinion. They are elected representatives of the American people. Republicans have gotten over 98% of the nominated Bush judges approved. Clinton got 61%. The Democrats are doing the right thing and the Republican obstinacy on these very few nominations. shows a disrespect for their fellow citizens and a hypocritical lip service attitude toward democracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bitch Posted November 14, 2003 Share Posted November 14, 2003 [quote] The Dems have a right to voice their opinion [/quote]Yes, AND they also have a job to do, so VOTE on the damn judges and be done with it. If the judges lose, then they lose, but at least lets hope the Senators will do their basic duty and vote on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nursers Posted November 14, 2003 Share Posted November 14, 2003 Is Judge Dredd one of the options? He's coool. The Keyboard Chronicles Podcast Check out your fellow forumites in an Apple Music playlist Check out your fellow forumites in a Spotify playlist My Music: Stainless Fields Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alcohol_ Posted November 14, 2003 Share Posted November 14, 2003 Republicans can end this whole drama and withdraw these nominations. Republicans used other means of blocking Clinton nominations from coming to a vote. Republicans should rename their party to the Hypocrisy Party. The Democrats are exercising their patriotic duty in stopping the nomination of unfit people for judicial benches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bitch Posted November 14, 2003 Share Posted November 14, 2003 [quote] Republicans can end this whole drama and withdraw these nominations. Republicans used other means of blocking Clinton nominations from coming to a vote. Republicans should rename their party to the Hypocrisy Party. [/quote]You seem to be talking about clinton alot. I thought we could not bring him into present day arguments? Why should they pull the nominations? Just VOTE on the damn things and be done with it. If they lose, they LOSE. I like C-span. It takes the buffer(media spin) out of the way. Now, if we could just get the spin OFF the Senate floor. :freak: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Moore Posted November 14, 2003 Share Posted November 14, 2003 exactly WOW. If they don't have the support of the peoples elected representatives, then they will lose. What is different, and probably unconstitutional, is dems effectively requiring 60 votes for confirmation instead of the 51 as required by the constitution. These are all well qualified nominees, they are beeing blocked by people who don't like their politics, not because of their qualifications. Chuck Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alcohol_ Posted November 14, 2003 Share Posted November 14, 2003 There are good reasons to pull the nominations: "As Alabama Attorney General, Pryor challenged the constitutionality of two major federal environmental statutes--the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act (ESA)." "In addition, Pryor testified before Congress that "EPA invaded the province of the States" by enforcing the Clean Air Act to prevent uncontrolled pollution increases at coal-burning power plants and oil refineries." http://www.oneworld.net/article/view/64767/1/ I like drinking clean water and I think Congress has the right to pass legislation regulating Clean Water. I don't want anyone on a judicial bench that is opposed to clean water period. I have asthma. I think I should have the right to breathe clean air and that no business has the right to pollute the air I breathe. Pricilla Owen: "Owen has tried to limit the publics ability to access and review government information. In one case, the majority stated that under Owen's restrictive interpretation of the Texas Public Information Act, "any document, regardless of its content and regardless of whether it would be otherwise available to the public under the Public Information Act, would be exempt from disclosure just because it could be considered in a closed meeting." http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=7793 I'm for the Public Information Act. I think it is in my and my country's best interest to be able to have access to documents that directly affect their life. I wouldn't want any judge, Republican or Democrat who opposes the Public Information act. The Democratas have approved over 95% ove Bush's nominees. They have your interests and the country's interest at hand by opposing these nominees. Why aren't you against them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Moore Posted November 14, 2003 Share Posted November 14, 2003 First the dems have THEIR OWN interests at heart....certainly not mine. second they have approvred district court nominees, which are lower level judges. when it comes to CIRCUIT court judges, they are blocking a majority of them, especially women and minorities. This is simple, Supreme court justices come from Circuit courts. Justice O'Conner, a moderate swing vote will likely be retiring soon. If there is a female or minority judge such as these on the Circuit, they may get nominated. This is really more about the Supremes than any of these in particular. The dems are out and losing ground in the Legislature, losing governors, out of the White house for the forseeable future, (2004?? HA!) and are deep into the process of self destructing nationally. The Judiciary is their last stronghold (stranglehold?) on the American people. Liberal policies nearly always find their way into American society through the courts, as they seldom have support from the electorate. They are terrified of the erosion of the liberal judiciary and the apointment of common sense judges. Their blocking of judges is self preservation. Chuck Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bitch Posted November 14, 2003 Share Posted November 14, 2003 [quote] the dems have THEIR OWN interests at heart....certainly not mine. [/quote]:thu: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alcohol_ Posted November 14, 2003 Share Posted November 14, 2003 I brought up a couple of valid reasons for objecting to the Bush nominations and you guys sidestep those reasons and beg questions. I have no respect for those kind of rhetorical ploys. You want to be taken seriously in your arguments than argue with intelligence. I'm disgusted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bitch Posted November 14, 2003 Share Posted November 14, 2003 [quote] I brought up a couple of valid reasons for objecting to the Bush nominations and you guys sidestep those reasons and beg questions. I have no respect for those kind of rhetorical ploys. You want to be taken seriously in your arguments than argue with intelligence. I'm disgusted [/quote]LOL LOL Nice try. You cant turn the tables that easy. YOU KNOW the democrats are holding up the vote from the Senate for political reasons. I saw what you posted, it sounds like the talking points that the dems used all week. Its not about what you posted, its all about the blocking of judges by the minority . If you are disgusted, then fine. You preach about wanting honest government and then turn your back when obstruction is obvious. JUST VOTE, yes or no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philter Posted November 14, 2003 Share Posted November 14, 2003 The rules are the rules. Bottom line is, it takes 60% approval to get a judge confirmed, simply because of the rules congress plays by. You guys are pissed that the Democrats are using the rules to their advantage... Don't you wonder why the Republicans don't go ahead and change the rules? I'll tell you why- because they like them the way they are. It's like you're watching a baseball game and complaining that one side keeps beaning all the other team's batters. Hey, that's part of the game, and the Democrats and Republicans both know that eventually, the other team comes up to bat. But go ahead, cry about how you don't like the rules... ---------------------------- Phil Mann http://www.wideblacksky.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bitch Posted November 14, 2003 Share Posted November 14, 2003 [quote] The rules are the rules. Bottom line is, it takes 60% approval to get a judge confirmed, simply because of the rules congress plays by [/quote]No it does not, it takes 50% until NOW. The Senate rules have just been changed. Blame it on whoever you want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alcohol_ Posted November 14, 2003 Share Posted November 14, 2003 Yes or no question. Do you agree or disagree withe the Owens and Pryor positions I posted above? If you disagree then do you feel that isn't good enough reason to oppose the nomination.? Because I want my Senator dto do everything in their power to block those people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bitch Posted November 14, 2003 Share Posted November 14, 2003 [quote]Because I want my Senator dto do everything in their power to block those people [/quote]I was with ya till this, its their job to VOTE yes or no. Not to undermind the constitution at every corner. If they dont like him/her vote NO, but just vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alcohol_ Posted November 14, 2003 Share Posted November 14, 2003 The constitution isn't undermined by using a filibuster. That's ignorant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bitch Posted November 14, 2003 Share Posted November 14, 2003 [quote] The constitution isn't undermined by using a filibuster. That's ignorant. [/quote]The Democrats are not holding a filibuster. Did you watch? They tried every trick in the book to get the hell out of the Senate. Just for the record, a filibuster DOES undermind the Constitution. If this is what you call "honest government", then I'll take the "evil" republicans ANY DAY. This is pointless, I have said my part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.