Crap Throwing Monkey Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 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. 439597[/snapback] Look at the hurricane news. Most of the people forgot by Wednesday everything they'd heard on Saturday about FEMA's preparations. Hell, most of the media forgot, and it's their own damned stories they were ignoring. Most of "us" don't see past last weekend, never mind last week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 I never figured you for a closet moral relativist. There is hope for you yet. 439660[/snapback] Eat shidt and choke. I care about no one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 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. 439651[/snapback] He was claiming it only had to do with regards to judicial appointments, but it would in fact end up being in regards to all presidential appointments as they would fall under the same classification. My guess is that this would also be the case for treaties that the President signs and come before the Senate for ratification. I don't see how something purely "legislative" could be covered under this, as any change to the Senate rules requires a 2/3 majority vote. The "Constitutional" or "nuclear" option was available to Frist for the judicial nominations, as the VP would be settling a question of whether the rule applied, not changing or creating the rule. Even if he had the stones to try it (or any Senate Majority Leader had the stones for that matter), I don't see how he could frame the issue in a way that allowed bypassing the 2/3 rules modification requirement. I might be missing something, but I don't see how other rules changes could be made in at their discretion. If there is a portion of the Senate rules that contradicts my understanding, please let me know; I would like to look at that, but in my reading of them I don't see it. Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 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 439578[/snapback] You're trying to reason with a guy who proudly boasts in his sig line that he's a racist? And if that is somehow his attempt at sarcasm, one, it's not funny and two, how in the world can you tell? I wouldn't put it that "abortion is legal" b/c it's a misnomer. I would say that most people see it in terms of "It's none of your damn business." With an issue that is so rancorous and split as abortion (defining "when life is life" which for many includes various religious beliefs), that is exactly where failing federal or state law (and it would be a failure when every time the other party is elected, the law changes, back and forth, back and forth) the "reserved to the people [to make their own decisions]' part of the Constitution kicks in. Odd that the SC filed it under right to privacy, but I guess that's just another way of saying the same thing. When emotions get high on the anti-choice side, they forget that little clause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 I never figured you for a closet moral relativist. There is hope for you yet. 439660[/snapback] i always figured BiB as a closet something else Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 i always figured BiB as a closet something else 439753[/snapback] Oh, great shot! Tuesdays suck for wit, don't they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimshiz Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 All you guys REALLY concerned with women's rights abortion issues raise your hands. 439597[/snapback] "abortion" is not a women's rights issue !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimshiz Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 You're trying to reason with a guy who proudly boasts in his sig line that he's a racist? And if that is somehow his attempt at sarcasm, one, it's not funny and two, how in the world can you tell? 439698[/snapback] I am a "racist" because I think that affirmative action is "wrong". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 "abortion" is not a women's rights issue !!! 439765[/snapback] I don't know about you, but I haven't needed an abortion lately. Last I checked, guys can't get pregnant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 I don't know about you, but I haven't needed an abortion lately. Last I checked, guys can't get pregnant. 439770[/snapback] But they can be aborted. If you're pro-choice, it's a women's rights issue. If you're pro-life, it's a human rights issue. Not that I care, since my contribution to the pro-life movement involves me not getting a woman pregnant until I'm married to her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tux of Borg Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 It's a woman's choice to have an abortion or not. It's a woman's choice to collect child support or not. It's a woman's choice to collect welfare from the government or not. Blah blah blah... when are we going to see some smurfs' rights. I caught round one of interviews this morning. I thought Senator Kennedy's head was going to explode. No doubt he is in love with his own voice. I also felt that Roberts held up well under questioning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 I am a "racist" because I think that affirmative action is "wrong". 439767[/snapback] Notice how you didn't respond to the second part of my post? Yeah. I figured that. I think AA is wrong, too. I don't go around boasting that I'm a racist. Read your sig in the eyes of someone coming here for the first time. The sarcasm is hard to distinguish there, man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 Given that he didn't get the most votes in the first election, and that he won by the smallest margin in history of any incombant in the second, it would be nice if he would select someone who represented the views of the majority of Americans, Spare me.... Given that 57% of voters voted against Clinton in '92, did he appoint people who represented the views of the majority of Americans? Yeah, that's what I thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 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. 439175[/snapback] A majority of those WHO VOTED supported Bush in one of the two elections (by the smallest margin ever), yet based on most polls two-thirds of Americans believe that abortion shouldn't be totally banned. Show me a poll where the majority of Americans say that all abortion should be banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 Notice how you didn't respond to the second part of my post? Yeah. I figured that. I think AA is wrong, too. I don't go around boasting that I'm a racist. Read your sig in the eyes of someone coming here for the first time. The sarcasm is hard to distinguish there, man. 439927[/snapback] Why should he read it from the eyes of a first timer only? Let's take you for example. You are clearly a genius, have over 1800 posts and you couldn't figure out it was sarcasm. Surely if you can't figure it out, no one can. Don't you get dizzy with the world spinning around you all day like that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 Spare me....Given that 57% of voters voted against Clinton in '92, did he appoint people who represented the views of the majority of Americans? Yeah, that's what I thought. 439983[/snapback] Ginsburg was the chief counsel for the ACLU. We're all American, we all like civil liberties, lots of people are in unions, therefore Ginsburg does properly represent our views. Use your logic man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 Ginsburg was the chief counsel for the ACLU. We're all American, we all like civil liberties, lots of people are in unions, therefore Ginsburg does properly represent our views. Use your logic man. 440017[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 any change to the Senate rules requires a 2/3 majority vote.439691[/snapback] Is that really the case? Where can we look that up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 Is that really the case? Where can we look that up? 440061[/snapback] Linky Thingy From page 210: In theory, these rules may be adopted or amended by a simple majority of Senators acting through a Senate resolution. In practice, however, under the current Standing Rules, a change requires the consent of two-thirds of Senators present—the number needed to end a filibuster on a rules change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 But they can be aborted. If you're pro-choice, it's a women's rights issue. If you're pro-life, it's a human rights issue. Not that I care, since my contribution to the pro-life movement involves me not getting a woman pregnant until I'm married to her. 439775[/snapback] I take it you practice total abstinence then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts