Sen. Charles Schumer of New York

[Mickey]

And you seem only too happy to defend this practice.  At least for the far left.  I'm sure you would have been just as understanding if the conservatives had tried to drag Ginsberg through the mud for refusing to condemn Affirmative Action in her hearings.

 

Schumer is scum.

457477[/snapback]

Not exactly, I am only too happy to not pretend that Charles Schumer invented the practice or that my own guys are above it. Further, since the Constitution mandated a political process for judicial appointments, I see no reason not to defend the Constitution.

 

By the way, if Charles Schumer is scum for voting against Roberts based on his perception of the rulings Roberts is likely to make, are those who voted for him also scum for doing so based on their perception of the rulings he is likely to make?

[KD in CA]

Yes, God forbid we ever experience the peace and prosperity we did circa

1992-2000, lord knows I couldn't stand another second of that.  I am not sure what I would miss the most, the wars, the recessions or the record deficits. 

457571[/snapback]

 

Ah yes, the 'peace and prosperity' argument. Those were the good old days indeed. Who doesn't miss the days when we simply ignored the growing security threats because the terrorist attacks and warnings 1) didn't occur on US soil and 2) when they did, the body counts weren't high enough for the media to care. And of course the 'prosperity' of a stock market bubble that was built on a smoke and mirrors 'dot com' economy, aided with an era of corporate corruption that was cheerfully encouraged by our leaders at the time.

 

 

Oh wait, I forgot.....Enron bilking people out of millions during the 1990s was Bush's fault.

[Mickey]

Ah yes, the 'peace and prosperity' argument.  Those were the good old days indeed.  Who doesn't miss the days when we simply ignored the growing security threats because the terrorist attacks and warnings 1) didn't occur on US soil and 2) when they did, the body counts weren't high enough for the media to care.  And of course the 'prosperity' of a stock market bubble that was built on a smoke and mirrors 'dot com' economy, aided with an era of corporate corruption that was cheerfully encouraged by our leaders at the time.

Oh wait, I forgot.....Enron bilking people out of millions during the 1990s was Bush's fault.   

457597[/snapback]

Yep, and everything bad that has happened since Bush's (s)election in 2000 is all Clinton's fault. In fact, Clinton's bombing of Iraq is what ended Saddam's WMD programs which is why they weren't there when Bush invaded. Therefore, ergo, Bush's bogus justification for the Iraq war was really all Clinton's fault. I'd compare body counts of dead Americans during the term of each but that wouldn't be fair since George still has a few more years to run up the score and besides, you'll just find a way to blame the Iraq war on Clinton as well. How you'll do that and give Bush the elder a pass on letting Saddam stay in power, I can't wait to see.

 

Will there ever come a time when Bush will have to take responsibility for his decisions or is that "its Clinton's fault" hall pass a perpetual one? I think I'll send him a plaque for his desk: "The buck stops with the last administration" or maybe "the other President ate my homework".

[KD in CA]

Yep, and everything bad that has happened since Bush's (s)election in 2000 is all Clinton's fault.  In fact, Clinton's bombing of Iraq is what ended Saddam's WMD programs which is why they weren't there when Bush invaded.  Therefore, ergo, Bush's bogus justification for the Iraq war was really all Clinton's fault.  I'd compare body counts of dead Americans during the term of each but that wouldn't be fair since George still has a few more years to run up the score and besides, you'll just find a way to blame the Iraq war on Clinton as well.  How you'll do that and give Bush the elder a pass on letting Saddam stay in power, I can't wait to see.

 

Will there ever come a time when Bush will have to take responsibility for his decisions or is that "its Clinton's fault" hall pass a perpetual one?  I think I'll send him a plaque for his desk:  "The buck stops with the last administration"  or maybe "the other President ate my homework".

457675[/snapback]

 

 

Sorry to interrupt your juvenille rant, but please point out exactly where I blamed the Iraq war on Clinton and/or absolved Bush for any of his mistakes? YOU are the one who brought up the Clinton era. I merely pointed out that your 'peace and prosperity' line was a load of bullsh-- (which you didn't bother to argue).

 

It is amusing how defensive you guys get anytime Clinton's name is mentioned. What was that line about 'protesting too much'?

[KRC]

Will there ever come a time when Bush will have to take responsibility for his decisions or is that "its Clinton's fault" hall pass a perpetual one? 

457675[/snapback]

 

It will happen when the left finally realizes that the "it happened on his watch, so it is his fault" stuff is wrong. It goes both ways.

[Mickey]

Sorry to interrupt your juvenille rant, but please point out exactly where I blamed the Iraq war on Clinton and/or absolved Bush for any of his mistakes?  YOU are the one who brought up the Clinton era.  I merely pointed out that your 'peace and prosperity' line was a load of bullsh-- (which you didn't bother to argue).

 

It is amusing how defensive you guys get anytime Clinton's name is mentioned.  What was that line about 'protesting too much'? 

457709[/snapback]

Actually, JSP brought up how terrible it would be if another Clinton were in the WH, a fairly clear reference to how awful it was the first go-round, hence the response to him you felt compelled to join in on with your own take of the Clinton years.

 

I took your remark regarding Clinton having ignored security threats to include more than just terrorism thinking that if you meant to be more specific you would have used a less general term than "security threats". Was Saddam a "security threat" that you believe Clinton ignored or one that he dealt with effectively?

 

Still waiting for a response from you on the question as whether those who confirmed Roberts based on what they think he'll do on the bench are just as scummy as Schumer is for being against his confirmation based on what he thinks Roberts will do on the bench.

 

By the way, the "juvenile" comment is much appreciated because these discussions are always improved by hurling personal insults. Bravo.

 

Another question, which type of post most fits the definition of "rant", one which contains personal insults or one which doesn't?

[Mickey]

It will happen when the left finally realizes that the "it happened on his watch, so it is his fault" stuff is wrong. It goes both ways.

457711[/snapback]

Economies and natural disasters unfortunately don't recognize election cycles.

 

Certainly, not all that has happened on Bush's watch is his fault however, how he has responded to those events is his responsibility.

 

The war in Iraq for example. That is his baby, through and through. If there is blame to shoulder, congress was right there nodding in agreement the whole way and in fact, I supported the war myself after a fashion. So there are plenty of people who have a share in responsibility there but the man with absolutely the most responsibility is George W. Bush. Neither the public nor the congress stopped him, even if they could have. By the same token, neither the public nor the congress was clamoring for the invasion of Iraq. It was his idea and the way it was performed is, again, all his responsibility.

[\GoBillsInDallas/]

Roberts needs to be approved ASAP!!!!!!

 

That way, he will be able to rule on that all-important Anna Nicole Smith case that somehow got accepted by the SC for review.

[EC-Bills]

Roberts needs to be approved ASAP!!!!!!

 

That way, he will be able to rule on that all-important Anna Nicole Smith case that somehow got accepted by the SC for review.

458203[/snapback]

[Ghost of BiB]

I don't like him.

 

And nobody can make me.

[Mickey]

I don't like him.

 

And nobody can make me.

458242[/snapback]

I rather think that Schumer feels the same way about Roberts.

[PastaJoe]

Did they help you get that job you wanted Joe? I think they're the ones who are suppose to help you on the local level.

 

But then again helping yourself is not something the democratic party wants you to do.

 

Land lots available in New Orleans, Cheap. Maybe even Free!!

457263[/snapback]

 

No, they didn't get me the job of GM of the Sabres, but I didn't expect that they would. But they did do their part along with Republican Rep. Jim Walsh in working with the state and local gov't in putting together a comprehensive tax incentive plan that would have insured that Carrier manufacturing would remain profitable and competitive in Syracuse. But the corporate pricks and majority stockholders at UTC aren't content in making a decent profit, they want to make as much as possible so they still closed the plants and moved the work to China and Singapore. With a Congress and President unwilling to take away tax breaks from multinational corporations that still move jobs overseas, Clinton and Schumer did their best to stand up for the middle class workers. You can call it socialism, I call it patriotism.

[Bill from NYC]

No, they didn't get me the job of GM of the Sabres, but I didn't expect that they would.  But they did do their part along with Republican Rep. Jim Walsh in working with the state and local gov't in putting together a comprehensive tax incentive plan that would have insured that Carrier manufacturing would remain profitable and competitive in Syracuse.  But the corporate pricks and majority stockholders at UTC aren't content in making a decent profit, they want to make as much as possible so they still closed the plants and moved the work to China and Singapore.  With a Congress and President unwilling to take away tax breaks from multinational corporations that still move jobs overseas, Clinton and Schumer did their best to stand up for the middle class workers.  You can call it socialism, I call it patriotism.

458346[/snapback]

 

Is Hillary more patriotic than Bill, who signed NAFTA? What is she, a super-patriot?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

No, they didn't get me the job of GM of the Sabres, but I didn't expect that they would.  But they did do their part along with Republican Rep. Jim Walsh in working with the state and local gov't in putting together a comprehensive tax incentive plan that would have insured that Carrier manufacturing would remain profitable and competitive in Syracuse.  But the corporate pricks and majority stockholders at UTC aren't content in making a decent profit, they want to make as much as possible so they still closed the plants and moved the work to China and Singapore.  With a Congress and President unwilling to take away tax breaks from multinational corporations that still move jobs overseas, Clinton and Schumer did their best to stand up for the middle class workers.  You can call it socialism, I call it patriotism.

458346[/snapback]

 

I call it socialism, because trying to FORCE companies into uncompetitive situations is the essence of socialism.

[PastaJoe]

Is Hillary more patriotic than Bill, who signed NAFTA? What is she, a super-patriot? 

458620[/snapback]

 

NAFTA turned out to be a mistake that was supported by both parties, it didn't deliver on it's promise to create a significant number of trade-related jobs in the U.S.. Perot was right on that one. Now we have to learn from the mistakes of the past, and not support CAFTA or any other legislation that doesn't protect U.S. jobs. Companies that move jobs out of the U.S. to other nations should lose any tax breaks they receive. Those tax breaks should be given to those that create new jobs in the U.S..

[PastaJoe]

I call it socialism, because trying to FORCE companies into uncompetitive situations is the essence of socialism.

458643[/snapback]

 

When companies and majority stockholders turn their back on the middle class workers that did the work so they could make a decent return on investment, they are being unpatriotic. Taking away tax breaks from companies that move jobs overseas isn't forcing them to do anything, it's their choice if they decide they want to lose that incentive. But I don't want our tax money rewarding them for abandoning American workers.

[Bill from NYC]

NAFTA turned out to be a mistake that was supported by both parties, it didn't deliver on it's promise to create a significant number of trade-related jobs in the U.S..  Perot was right on that one.  Now we have to learn from the mistakes of the past, and not support CAFTA or any other legislation that doesn't protect U.S. jobs.  Companies that move jobs out of the U.S. to other nations should lose any tax breaks they receive.  Those tax breaks should be given to those that create new jobs in the U.S..

458645[/snapback]

 

Do you think that this should apply to Heinz Ketchup and their numerous offshore plants?

My point is that I find it hard to comprehend how you could truly believe that people such as Kerry, Schumer and the Clintons are friends of the working class.

Again, I am NOT saying that Bush cares much about workers mind you, but I like the tax cuts, especially when reading in the other thread about free Medicaid cab rides to a (free) podiatrist, and dental/optical care with no co-pay.

These are items that cost me hundreds of dollars per year, and honestly, I feel more deserving of these things than an illegal alien on Medicaid.

[KRC]

When companies and majority stockholders turn their back on the middle class workers that did the work so they could make a decent return on investment, they are being unpatriotic. 

458652[/snapback]

 

No, it is called capitalism, Comrade.

[Bill from NYC]

No, it is called capitalism, Comrade.

458662[/snapback]

 

I am confused here Ken. Is it truly capitalism for the government to give tax breaks to companies who outsource our jobs?

[KRC]

I am confused here Ken. Is it truly capitalism for the government to give tax breaks to companies who outsource our jobs?

458664[/snapback]

 

It is capitalism to achieve the highest profit for your company. Companies are in business to make money. Nothing more. If they make more money by shifting the workforce overseas, that is what they will do. Welcome to global economics in a free-market society.