Wacka Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 I long ago accepted it yet still I sail the stormy seas of the discontented. Sounds bad but I used to sail the stormy seas of the incontinent so this is a distinct improvement. 439210[/snapback] Hope the Depends worked! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 diplodocussian 439182[/snapback] Excellent adjective, Kim! Rock on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 Excellent adjective, Kim! Rock on! 439368[/snapback] I was impressed. Way cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 Excellent adjective, Kim! Rock on! 439368[/snapback] The adjectives were cool, but the alliteration kicked ass! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 You may be right given the liklihood of a senate filibuster by democrats but what if Frist decides to change the rules and get rid of the filibuster? If it went backto the states, you would have states where it is illegal in all circumstances, states where it is legal under all circumastances and a bunch somewhere in between. Can you imagine the reaction by the religious right, newly emboldened after at last obtaining victory over Roe, to "babies being murdered" in New York, California, Rhode Island, Conn., Mass., Ill., Oregon, Washington, New Jersey, Maryland, etc? There would be a huge amount of political pressure to pass a federal law and the only thing standing in the way of that would be the Senate filibuster and we have seen how much the Republican majority respects filibusters. 439316[/snapback] I don't believe that Frist would be able to change the rules without having a 2/3 majority. I don't see either party (or even pro life or choice proponents) getting to 67 any time in the near future. An abortion related bill would not be subject to "nuclear option" which was considered for judicial nominee review. The "nuclear option" was (as far as I can figure out) an effort to have "executive" matters not covered under the Senate's rule XXII regarding "legislative" matters. I agree that there would be tremendous pressure, from both sides, regarding federal intervention into the matter. I just don't see how anything substantial would ever survive a threatened filibuster. Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 Hope the Depends worked! 439358[/snapback] Nice......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 He can nominate someone simply because they like Bud Light if he wants to.439069[/snapback] I'm sure the nomination hearings would center around his views on the monumental case of Tastes Great vs Less Filling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 Good, we agree !!! A majority of Americans voted for GWB, therefore a majority of Americans would support GWB nominating someone with the same principle beliefs as he does. Not necessarily. Some people didn't vote *for* Bush, they voted *against* Kerry and vice versa. So while Bush won, it's not quite black and white. NOT true !!! 439175[/snapback] According to whom? Can you explain further? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 I'm sure the nomination hearings would center around his views on the monumental case of Tastes Great vs Less Filling 439501[/snapback] Kirk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 DO NOT stifle the patriotic dissent of Comrade PastaJoe!! The rigged fraudulent 2000 and 2004 elections prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that the criminal US imperialists of the Bush clique of dirty doggish demented deranged diplodocussian mentally cracked bourgeois consumerist colonial provokers of criminal bellicose wars of aggression troughout history, are nothing more than thieves, since the very nature of war-crazed greed-based individualist capitalism, contrary to peace-loving altruistic Juche-based man-centered Korean-style socialism, is to steal everything from everybody. 439182[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 439515[/snapback] You really have to admire the diplodocussian. I'm a little disappointed that after all that, he blew "throughout". But, it's not worth picking over. I have bigger fish to fry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 Kirk 439512[/snapback] Well, you were wrong, you mountebank. I pose a conundrum to ya, I riddle if you will What's the difference between you and a mallard with a cold? One's a sick duck and I can't remember how it ends, but your mother's a whore Suck it Trebek! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 Well, you were wrong, you mountebank. I pose a conundrum to ya, I riddle if you will What's the difference between you and a mallard with a cold? One's a sick duck and I can't remember how it ends, but your mother's a whore Suck it Trebek! 439535[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 The purpose of the response is to leave open the question of how they would decide a particular case that might affect previous precedent. If they are truely objective, they would judge based on the merits of the case, and not let their personal opinions factor in their judgement. But they are human and not robots, so they can't be relied upon to be purely objective. There's a reason why Bush selected Roberts, because he and his supporters believe he will make decisions in line with their opinions, including Roe v Wade. There's no guarantee, but they at least think he'll judge a certain way. That's why it's important to grill these nominees, because it's a lifetime appointment that will affect us, our children, and grandchildren, and there's only one shot at questioning them and voting on them. Personally, I'd like to see term limits for all lifetime appointed courts, like one term for 10 years, so we aren't stuck with the same people for so long. 438822[/snapback] Agreed. Good post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 Good, we agree !!! A majority of Americans voted for GWB, therefore a majority of Americans would support GWB nominating someone with the same principle beliefs as he does.NOT true !!! 439175[/snapback] Really now? Everyone that voted for him has the exact same principle beliefs as he does? I didn't know there was a candidate for every point along the political spectrum... Oh wait a second, this isn't fantasy world, this is America. There are two players, and not one fully matches everyone's beliefs. It'd also be nice if you would back up your claims, since they are so off-base its not even funny. Let me give you an example. You said that its not true that the majority of Americans think abortion should be legal. Where's the proof? In fact, I'll one up you. Here's proof that the majority of American's DO think Abortion should be legal: http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=253 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 What idiots Biden and the whale (Ted Kennedy) are. They ask him a long convoluted question. Before he can even finish one sentence they interrupt and start badgering him. Hatch (or Specter-can't tell from the radio) had to keep telling the two to STFU and let him answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 It's interesting how so many can take an issue, and basically go black and white with it. No shades of grey. No nuances or subtleties, and make it a temporary cause celebre until next week, or maybe the week after. A month from now, those not extremely dedicated to a narrow course of action are not going to care, and those of us who are are not the few and far between who do, , whatever side, are the "Hot Pockets" representatives. "Ding" Hot pockets is not old, nor is it a joke. It's mentioned how our long term future may be predicated through actions taken now, but I've long had a long term feeling that many of us don't see past last week. My opinion, but I have one, and you can't take it away from me. I don't know the in's and out's of law. Don't know that I want to, but I have heard from people on both sides discussing that he ain't a bad choice. All you guys REALLY concerned with women's rights abortion issues raise your hands. I thought so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 It's interesting how so many can take an issue, and basically go black and white with it. No shades of grey. No nuances or subtleties, and make it a temporary cause celebre until next week, or maybe the week after. A month from now, those not extremely dedicated to a narrow course of action are not going to care, and those of us who are are not the few and far between who do, , whatever side, are the "Hot Pockets" representatives. "Ding" Hot pockets is not old, nor is it a joke. It's mentioned how our long term future may be predicated through actions taken now, but I've long had a long term feeling that many of us don't see past last week. My opinion, but I have one, and you can't take it away from me. I don't know the in's and out's of law. Don't know that I want to, but I have heard from people on both sides discussing that he ain't a bad choice. All you guys REALLY concerned with women's rights abortion issues raise your hands. I thought so. 439597[/snapback] Its a necessity to focus on one issue at a time. If we didn't, nothing would ever get done. However, to just assume an "out of sight, out of mind" policy with most people on these things is to say that most people don't really care about the issues in play. The issues that are tackled now, and that we decide, will become ways of life in the future. Everything that happens, will affect someone, possibly even later on in life. One of the things that happens in this "Hot Pocket" society as you so like to refer to it as, is a loss of caring about issues that will effect people even after you are dead. If it doesn't effect me right now, why should I really worry about it? This has been the attitude for a while now. Imagine if this attitude prevented people from trying to change things in previous generations. "Well, I could stand up to the British, but I'll most likely be dead by the time I see any change, so whatever, I'll just take their tyranny". While that was a joke, society has lost a focus of trying to make things better for the future. And not just the Democrats with Social Security either. To make a long story short - Am I "REALLY" concerned with women's right's and abortion issues because it affects me right here, right now (DING)? No I am not. Am I concerned about the ramifications for future generations, effecting later generations even after I die? Yes, I am. I do think its a big deal, especially since 30 years of precedent could be set by the next supreme court. I also think its a big deal because everyone has lost focus on the goal of creating a better society long-term, rather then just creating a better society right now. A lot of that focus has returned in the areas of foreign policy - its one of the most highly argued points by the conservatives. However, these same people are willing to make the future safer, but aren't too concerned by future policies that could effect people's lives ways other then security. The Democrats are making a lot of the same mistakes as well. There is a problem with Social Security, and it needs to be reformed. Yet, the Democrats refuse to admit it because its fine for the next 20-30 years or so. Its come down to a system of, "is it beneficial for me to make this issue a long-term or short-term issue" to decide how to focus the issue. That to me is one of the biggest failings of our system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 I don't believe that Frist would be able to change the rules without having a 2/3 majority. I don't see either party (or even pro life or choice proponents) getting to 67 any time in the near future. An abortion related bill would not be subject to "nuclear option" which was considered for judicial nominee review. The "nuclear option" was (as far as I can figure out) an effort to have "executive" matters not covered under the Senate's rule XXII regarding "legislative" matters. I agree that there would be tremendous pressure, from both sides, regarding federal intervention into the matter. I just don't see how anything substantial would ever survive a threatened filibuster. Dave. 439421[/snapback] Frist's position was that they only needed a simple majority to change the rules. You are right in that they claimed that it was only something they would do to with regard to appointments. The fact is though, the only thing keeping them from going further and elimenate the filibuster in other contexts is discretion and after the Schiavo freak out, I no longer credit them with having any discretion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 It's interesting how so many can take an issue, and basically go black and white with it. No shades of grey. No nuances or subtleties, and make it a temporary cause celebre until next week, or maybe the week after. A month from now, those not extremely dedicated to a narrow course of action are not going to care, and those of us who are are not the few and far between who do, , whatever side, are the "Hot Pockets" representatives. "Ding" Hot pockets is not old, nor is it a joke. It's mentioned how our long term future may be predicated through actions taken now, but I've long had a long term feeling that many of us don't see past last week. My opinion, but I have one, and you can't take it away from me. I don't know the in's and out's of law. Don't know that I want to, but I have heard from people on both sides discussing that he ain't a bad choice. All you guys REALLY concerned with women's rights abortion issues raise your hands. I thought so. 439597[/snapback] I never figured you for a closet moral relativist. There is hope for you yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts