|
|
| Author |
Message |
Abi
RealPoor Sensei
Joined: 11 Aug 2003
Posts: 1747
|
 Posted: 11/21/03 - 14:37 Post subject:
|
|
|
Electorial College = Representative Democracy
they are the same thing silly 
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
 |
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 11/21/03 - 14:38 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Akronn wrote: | :roll:
You don't understand one thing about this bill, WNWS, do you? You're just really chapped it's not passing.
Well take it from an environmental scientist who worked for two years in groundwater hydrology: this wasn't a good bill.
Now should we really listen to your 'majority' when, in fact, none of them have worked in the environmental field and know nothing but $$$ just because they're the 'majority?'
Jesus flippin' Christ... I sure hope your answer isn't 'yes.' |
I'm not arguing about the content of the bill or even that it should pass. I'm arguing about a liberal minority trying to prevent a vote from even hitting the floor. Let the Senate vote on it you despotic liberal!
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Alerik
Sir Postalot
Joined: 13 Oct 2002
Posts: 1375
|
|
Posted: 11/21/03 - 14:40 Post subject:
|
|
|
Abi I swear your post changed, else I am going nuts..
busy writing a speech on America's reliance on fossil-fuels and its repercussions.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Abi
RealPoor Sensei
Joined: 11 Aug 2003
Posts: 1747
|
|
Posted: 11/21/03 - 14:42 Post subject:
|
|
|
Al, now I'm confusing myself!!!  quit it!
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
KapnKimchi
Luke Warm
Joined: 15 Oct 2003
Posts: 311
|
|
Posted: 11/21/03 - 14:43 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: | Um...judicial nominees only require a majority. Not 60%. Constitution, plz.
Why don't you provide some examples of the radically conservative actions of these judges? |
Umm, normally it only requires 50% +1 vote but if you kept abreast of the news, you would know that the Democrats changed the requirements for this round. If the nominees werent close to 60%, they would not allow the nominees to be even officially voted upon through fillibustering. The Constiutition only applies to actual votes. Please read some news sources pertaining to this and get back to me when you're updated.
With respects to radical views, perhaps you should make an inquiry to the moderate Republicans and Democrats who were the ones who actually against these judges. I'm sure they would be happy to answer your questions if you took the time to email them rather than posting inane opinions on this board.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 11/21/03 - 14:46 Post subject:
|
|
|
| KapnKimchi wrote: | | Quote: | Um...judicial nominees only require a majority. Not 60%. Constitution, plz.
Why don't you provide some examples of the radically conservative actions of these judges? |
Umm, normally it only requires 50% +1 vote but if you kept abreast of the news, you would know that the Democrats changed the requirements for this round. If the nominees werent close to 60%, they would not allow the nominees to be even officially voted upon through fillibustering. The Constiutition only applies to actual votes. Please read the some news sources and get back to me when you're updated.
With respects to radical views, perhaps you should make an inquiry to the moderate Republicans and Democrats who were the ones who actually against these judges. I'm sure they would be happy to answer your questions if you took the time to email them rather than posting inane opinions on this board. |
The Democrats didn't "change" anything. They're a minority and the majority sets the rules. They're just p****d because the public elected them out of office so for the first time in history, they're filibustering judicial appointments.
How is that list of ultra-conservative judical acts coming along? I know you're saying those appointees are ultra -conservative because the Democrats told you so, but can you come up with an example?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
KapnKimchi
Luke Warm
Joined: 15 Oct 2003
Posts: 311
|
|
Posted: 11/21/03 - 14:58 Post subject:
|
|
|
Reading is fundamental d*****t, I never expressed my views whether I thought the judicial nominees were or were not conservative , radical or moderate. AGAIN, I merely pointed out that they were considered to be conservative by the people who were considering the issue. How bout this, why don't you do some investigative work and show us as to why they aren't ultra- conservative since you already expressed your views that you know so much about their backgrounds. Also, please include in your explanation how the majority of Americans want these particuliar nominees as federal judges. I would strongly bet that the majority of Americans don't even know who they f**k these guys are let alone know their beliefs.
Also, the democrats did CHANGE the game by first requiring that the nominees needed 60% approval b4 allowing the to be voted upon. This was unprecedented unless of course you can bring up some examples of this not being the case. Of course you always to seem to pull numbers and information out of your ass so I guess anything is possible. But please, do cite your information from legitimate sources because with your track record, I think we would believe you much more.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 11/21/03 - 15:10 Post subject:
|
|
|
| KapnKimchi wrote: | Reading is fundamental d*****t, I never expressed my views whether I thought the judicial nominees were or were not conservative , radical or moderate. AGAIN, I merely pointed out that they were considered to be conservative by the people who were considering the issue. How bout this, why don't you do some investigative work and show us as to why they aren't ultra- conservative since you already expressed your views that you know so much about their backgrounds. Also, please include in your explanation how the majority of Americans want these particuliar nominees as federal judges. I would strongly bet that the majority of Americans don't even know who they f**k these guys are let alone know their beliefs.
Also, the democrats did CHANGE the game by first requiring that the nominees needed 60% approval b4 allowing the to be voted upon. This was unprecedented unless of course you can bring up some examples of this not being the case. Of course you always to seem to pull numbers and information out of your ass so I guess anything is possible. But please, do cite your information from legitimate sources because with your track record, I think we would believe you much more. |
You're a tard. The Democrats didn't make any rule requiring 60% approval. The constitution only requires a majority. They are applying an unrelated Senate rule for filibustering that is very old. No Senators had the disrespect for the constitution like modern Democrats to apply it to judicial nominees, though.
I don't really care, because this just hurts Democrats even more and will probably cause them to lose even more seats.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
scrotum
Toomuchtimeonhands
Joined: 13 Oct 2002
Posts: 828
|
|
Posted: 11/21/03 - 15:21 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Banzai wrote: | Say what you like about Arnold but he is seriously thinking about hydrogen fule as a alternative power source for the automotive industry.
|
bout time.
Maybe americas pollution numbers will go down to what the rest of the world calls normal.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 11/21/03 - 15:22 Post subject:
|
|
|
| scrotum wrote: | | Banzai wrote: | Say what you like about Arnold but he is seriously thinking about hydrogen fule as a alternative power source for the automotive industry.
|
bout time.
Maybe americas pollution numbers will go down to what the rest of the world calls normal. |
Industrial nations pollute. Norway doesn't. Give yourself some time, though. I'm sure you'll eventually be able to support industry.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Akronn
Guest
|
|
Posted: 11/21/03 - 15:24 Post subject:
|
|
|
Do you remember when Republicans simply stalled Clinton nominees in the Judiciary Committee? And when that didn't work, Republicans put a private hold on a nominee's name. (Meaning no vote could be taken yet objectors never had to disclose who was 'holding' a nomination.)
60 of Clinton's nominees got blocked and 4 of Bush's has. When Clinton left office, judicial vacancy rates on federal courts was at an all-time high. Nice!
And far as filibustering goes, I distinctly recall Clinton's economic stimulus plan getting killed about 10 years ago by the minority GOP.
The Republican hypocrisy on filibusters and judicial nominees is so transparent that portraying the process as broken is laughable.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Syke
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 12 Oct 2002
Posts: 2976
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
|
|
Posted: 11/21/03 - 15:30 Post subject:
|
|
|
I want to ask...Why do you even Argue NWS? What is your purpose?
Are you going to convert these people to your party or something?
It sounds so much like a religious debate, it's scary.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 11/21/03 - 15:32 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Syke wrote: | I want to ask...Why do you even Argue NWS? What is your purpose?
Are you going to convert these people to your party or something?
It sounds so much like a religious debate, it's scary. |
boredom.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
Posted: 11/21/03 - 15:38 Post subject:
|
|
|
| WheresNWS wrote: | | Syke wrote: | I want to ask...Why do you even Argue NWS? What is your purpose?
Are you going to convert these people to your party or something?
It sounds so much like a religious debate, it's scary. |
boredom. |
Its fun?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 11/21/03 - 15:39 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Kbarr wrote: | | WheresNWS wrote: | | Syke wrote: | I want to ask...Why do you even Argue NWS? What is your purpose?
Are you going to convert these people to your party or something?
It sounds so much like a religious debate, it's scary. |
boredom. |
Its fun? |
hehe...that too.
edit. I used to be political when I was young (18ish). Now when I have a conversation with anyone I always avoid politics and religion like the plague. Realpoor serves as my outlet.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
KapnKimchi
Luke Warm
Joined: 15 Oct 2003
Posts: 311
|
|
Posted: 11/21/03 - 15:45 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: | | No Senators had the disrespect for the constitution like modern Democrats to apply it to judicial nominees, though. |
What are you basing this opinion upon? Can you site some examples or are you going to disregard this question like the one where we questioned how you came about with the notion that the majority of Americans wanted these 4 judical nominees. The fact is that the Democrats agreed to apppoint 168 of Bush's nominees and denied 4 which seems to be a pretty good ratio compared to the 20% Republican denial ratio or Clinton nominees. Anyway, as you think liberals are the bane of society, I consider uneducated conservative asswipes such as yourself as an example of why our country is headed for the dark ages.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 11/21/03 - 15:52 Post subject:
|
|
|
| KapnKimchi wrote: | | Quote: | | No Senators had the disrespect for the constitution like modern Democrats to apply it to judicial nominees, though. |
What are you basing this opinion upon? Can you site some examples or are you going to disregard this question like the one where we questioned how you came about with the notion that the majority of Americans wanted these 4 judical nominees. The fact is that the Democrats agreed to apppoint 168 of Bush's nominees and denied 4 which seems to be a pretty good ratio compared to the 20% Republican denial ratio or Clinton nominees. Anyway, as you think liberals are the bane of society, I consider uneducated conservative asswipes such as yourself as an example of why our country is headed for the dark ages. |
It doesn't matter if a majority of Americans want these 4 judicial nominees. A majority of Americans elected Senators to their positions who want those 4 judicial nominess (Representative Democracy. Look into it).
Leftists are PREVENTING A VOTE, not denying a judicial appointment. If the Senate were comprised of Democrats and they denied a nominee then the system would be working as it should. Instead, the Democrats in teh Senate is preventing a vote from hitting the floor. This is unprecidented and borders on a constitutional crisis.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
scrotum
Toomuchtimeonhands
Joined: 13 Oct 2002
Posts: 828
|
|
Posted: 11/21/03 - 15:56 Post subject:
|
|
|
| WheresNWS wrote: |
Now when I have a conversation with anyone I always avoid politics and religion like the plague. |
Do you avoid it because everyone would kick your f*****g ass for all your warped beliefs? I would'nt have any problem telling you all the things I've said, to your face, believe me.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Akronn
Guest
|
|
Posted: 11/21/03 - 15:56 Post subject:
|
|
|
Republicans prevented the vote all the time during Clinton's presidency. Funny thing, they held the Senate majority for much of the time and still refused votes to be held.
I don't recall Dems screaming bloody murder and 'unconstitutional!!' either.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 11/21/03 - 16:00 Post subject:
|
|
|
| scrotum wrote: | | WheresNWS wrote: |
Now when I have a conversation with anyone I always avoid politics and religion like the plague. |
Do you avoid it because everyone would kick your f*****g ass for all your warped beliefs? I would'nt have any problem telling you all the things I've said, to your face, believe me. |
See my other thread about a*****e Europeans. Trust me. I would have no trouble kicking you little ass all over your puny country. However, religion and politics usually turns into that, so I avoid it. Liberals (i.e. most Europeans) believe in omnipresent politics. It's embedded in your ideology (excessive government) and is played out in your every day lives. Conservatives like me bring it up only when necessary.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 11/21/03 - 16:01 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Akronn wrote: | Republicans prevented the vote all the time during Clinton's presidency. Funny thing, they held the Senate majority for much of the time and still refused votes to be held.
I don't recall Dems screaming bloody murder and 'unconstitutional!!' either. |
When you hold the majority, you get this privilege. Democrats don't hold the majority, you despotic liberal.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Akronn
Guest
|
|
Posted: 11/21/03 - 16:04 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
They were doing it when they didn't have the majority too.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Rennol
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 3741
Location: Charleston, IL
|
|
Posted: 11/21/03 - 16:13 Post subject:
|
|
|
It's amazing how during the Clinton years the Republicans successfully stonewalled a much higher percentage of his nominees, while the Democrats have allowed the confirmation of a comparatively much greater amount of Bush's nominees, when they stand up for their constituents in appointments of highly conservative people to very important positions, they are called out for it.
Nice double standard.
Go filibusters.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Akronn
Guest
|
|
Posted: 11/21/03 - 16:15 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
The GOP & Hypocrisy - It's What's For Dinner
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 11/21/03 - 16:16 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
You guys don't get it as usual. The Democrats are a MINORITY and they are preventing a vote on judicial nominees that the MAJORITY wants. Maybe you do get it and you're just despots.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Akronn
Guest
|
|
Posted: 11/21/03 - 16:17 Post subject:
|
|
|
| WheresNWS wrote: | | You guys don't get it as usual. The Democrats are a MINORITY and they are preventing a vote on judicial nominees that the MAJORITY wants. Maybe you do get it and you're just despots. |
But guess what, this has gone the other way too!
Lozzle
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Rennol
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 3741
Location: Charleston, IL
|
|
Posted: 11/21/03 - 16:22 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
If 60% of the people in America were to think that murder should become legal, WheresNWS would vehemently argue for its legalization.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
Posted: 11/21/03 - 16:23 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Rennol wrote: | | If 60% of the people in America were to think that murder should become legal, WheresNWS would vehemently argue for its legalization. |
Mna, if only that was true....
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 11/21/03 - 16:25 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Rennol wrote: | | If 60% of the people in America were to think that murder should become legal, WheresNWS would vehemently argue for its legalization. |
By this logic, if 40% of America were to think that murder were legal, you would argue for its legalization.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Rennol
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 3741
Location: Charleston, IL
|
|
Posted: 11/21/03 - 16:26 Post subject:
|
|
|
Reading comprehension my dear WheresNWS, you lack it.
I scored a 36 on the ACT Reading test.
Don't pull your shit with me.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
