http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36967616/ns/politics-supreme_court/
WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama will nominate U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan to serve as an associate justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, NBC News' Pete Williams reported late Sunday night.
Kagan, 50, served as the Dean of Harvard Law School from 2003 to 2009. Obama nominated her to serve in her current post as solicitor general early in 2009, and she won Senate confirmation by a vote of 61-31. She is the first woman to serve as solicitor general of the United States.
She was widely viewed as a front-runner when Obama was considering candidates for a Supreme Court opening last year, but the president ultimately chose Sonia Sotomayor for the job.
I think this is an EXCELLENT choice. As Solicitor General, she's already familiar with all of the justices, and from what I read, has a good relationship with all of them. I think she will work well with them if confirmed. :clap:
I haven't paid attention to the news this weekend, so I know very little about what is going on. All I know is when my Yahoo popped up and the picture of this woman was on it, I thought it was a man in drag. Seriously, I really questioned it. :biggrin:
I agree, Locutus :yes:
Kimmi, :nocomment:
Quote from: kimmi on May 10, 2010, 07:23:17 AM
I haven't paid attention to the news this weekend, so I know very little about what is going on. All I know is when my Yahoo popped up and the picture of this woman was on it, I thought it was a man in drag. Seriously, I really questioned it. :biggrin:
LOL! You're not the only one who drew that same conclusion. Although she's never admitted it, there are rumors in certain circles that she's a lesbian and certain gay rights groups are hailing this nomination as "the first gay person" to be nominated for the Supreme Court.
Quote from: kimmi on May 10, 2010, 07:23:17 AM
I haven't paid attention to the news this weekend, so I know very little about what is going on. All I know is when my Yahoo popped up and the picture of this woman was on it, I thought it was a man in drag. Seriously, I really questioned it. :biggrin:
Who in hell care what she looks like. She most likely better than 5 of the 9 that is there now.
Maybe it's time for more women to be on the Supreme Court. The men on it now are sure a bunch of dumbasses.
Give the presidency to George W.. Letting the state, towns and cities to take you property through imminent domain and giving or selling it to corporations so they can make more tax money.
And the most stupid decision to give a corporation the same standing as a human being. So they can buy the next election, by buying the candidates.
We have a pretty little millionaire Barby Doll running for Senate in Nevada who thinks you can get medical service from your doctor by giving him chickens.
Chickens not :turk:
Let's just hope the confirmation hearings don't rip her to shreds and make mountains out of molehills in order to get back at the POTUS. . .
She certainly appears to have the pedigree, ability, and willingness to do the job that needs doing surrounding the SCOTUS, not the least of which (As Troll alludes to) is returning the value and power of the citizen's vote to the people and taking it back from corporate Amerika. :yes:
Her sexual orientation is of no concern to me, as long as it fulfills her life. That is her business and hers alone. If the confirmation hearings attempt to invade that arena I hope she has the skills and ability to navigate that mine field. It appears that she indeed does. :yes:
Quote from: Palehorse on May 10, 2010, 10:25:53 AM
Let's just hope the confirmation hearings don't rip her to shreds and make mountains out of molehills in order to get back at the POTUS. . .
She certainly appears to have the pedigree, ability, and willingness to do the job that needs doing surrounding the SCOTUS, not the least of which (As Troll alludes to) is returning the value and power of the citizen's vote to the people and taking it back from corporate Amerika. :yes:
Her sexual orientation is of no concern to me, as long as it fulfills her life. That is her business and hers alone. If the confirmation hearings attempt to invade that arena I hope she has the skills and ability to navigate that mine field. It appears that she indeed does. :yes:
You mean like the Dems did to Bush? :rolleyes:
Quote from: me on May 10, 2010, 11:45:01 AM
You mean like the Dems did to Bush? :rolleyes:
See! :rolleyes:
Quote from: Palehorse on May 10, 2010, 11:49:52 AM
See! :rolleyes:
Didn't say it was a good thing or that if they did it would excuse it just a comment was all.
I'm very ecited about the possibility of having 3 intelligent women on the Supreme court. :thumbsup:
If she is gay, that's neither here nor there, but I'm encouraged by the diversity which is more representative of our country.
Quote from: Palehorse on May 10, 2010, 11:49:52 AM
See! :rolleyes:
What in hell are you crying about. One of the most brilliant minds in the world, George W. was given his choice, of Roberts, one of the biggest predatory capitalist loveing asshole he could find. That alone should make you happy.
Just think you are one of the wonderful people who voted for good old George twice not once but twice and with that and the crooked Republicans got us in the shape we are in now. :flap: :flap: :flap: :genius:
Quote from: The Troll on May 10, 2010, 02:07:57 PM
What in hell are you crying about. One of the most brilliant minds in the world, George W. was given his choice, of Roberts, one of the biggest predatory capitalist loveing asshole he could find. That alone should make you happy.
Just think you are one of the wonderful people who voted for good old George twice not once but twice and with that and the crooked Republicans got us in the shape we are in now. :flap: :flap: :flap: :genius:
Put the pipe down and step away from the keyboard. I'm not the one doing the crying. . .
Oh I don't care what her sexual orientation is. It was just the picture Yahoo used this morning really caught me off guard. I was having trouble comprehending that what I was seeing and what I was reading really was the same article. :biggrin:
Quote from: Palehorse on May 10, 2010, 04:59:49 PM
Put the pipe down and step away from the keyboard. I'm not the one doing the crying. . .
Sorry Palehorse. I hit the wrong quote. I was meant for "ME" She alway crying how we mistreated poor old dumbass George W.
The Democrats have never stooped to the utter hate and vile lying the way have the Republican have. I truly hate the Republican Party and it's leaders. The Republican Party works just like a septic tank in reverse. The shit rises to the top and stay there and stops up ever thing.
The Troll :trustme: :salute:
Due to the fact I do not trust anything that Obama or the democrats do or their motives, I am very reserved at this point to make any judgement about this potential appointment to the SCOTUS....let the vetting process begin.
No merit, just narrowmindedness.
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on May 11, 2010, 08:58:49 AM
No merit, just narrowmindedness.
whatever.. :rolleyes: I really don't give a shit, He could have nominated Ronald McDonald, and you guys would have been "thrilled"...........so, don't try to tell me WHO is narrowminded...
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 11, 2010, 09:26:55 AM
whatever.. :rolleyes: I really don't give a shit, He could have nominated Ronald McDonald, and you guys would have been "thrilled"...........so, don't try to tell me WHO is narrowminded...
Henry, why don't you enlighten us with your intelligence and tell us 5 things that Obama has done to lose you trust. With #1 being the worse.
It would be very interesting to me, because after you voting for George W. and Prick Cheney twice and the for the dumb old man McCain and dumbass and stupid Sara Palin. Obama is a breath of fresh air.
Nice Henry :rolleyes:
The point is that you give Republicans a pass regardless of what crime they commit and wait until you can pin one on a Democrat.
You seem to care more for your own blind partisanship than the well-being of our country or its leaders.
Oh and he's not reserving judgment, he's waiting for Faux to tell him what to think.
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on May 11, 2010, 09:45:52 AM
Oh and he's not reserving judgment, he's waiting for Faux to tell him what to think.
I can say this, FoxNews is the only source that is remotely honest about issues....all of the others are so biased it has become a joke.
Sandy, you are so biased and anti conservative, and have made your self believe that YOU are being intellectually honest...when it is so blatantly obvious that you could not be open minded about anything but a liberal issue....
I have not said anything bad about this lady, other than I don't trust Obama or his croanies...
Troll, I have pleanty of reasons WHY I dont' like him....
for one, he is a liar!
"I'll get rid of earmarks"...LIE
"Unemployment rate will be 8.5% without stimulus."...LIE...we passed the stimulus and it is 10%
"I am immediately instituting PayGo "Pay as you go""......BIG LIE...
"Recovery Act will save or create jobs"....WHEN?..OH, another LIE
"Guantanamo bay to be closed within a year"....LIE"We have launched a housing plan that will help responsible families facing the threat of foreclosure lower their monthly payments and refinance their mortgages." ...the foreclosure rate has shot up the last quarter of 09....months AFTER he passed the bill..
a LIE!
"Health Care deals will be covered on C-span"......okay.. :rolleyes: ..
LIE
he said he would
"Have troops out of Iraq by March 31, 2009"...on his campaign trail....well, again just another big
LIE!! and that along with the massive spending ...well, I simply don't LIKE HIM!!! do I need to give MORE reasons?
I have no problem with WHY you don't like W or Cheney.............they are NOT my hero's...they made their mistakes...but, I would take them OVER what is happening today...in a heart beat.
:biggrin:
You're not qualified to assess intellectual honesty and even if you were, your bias prevents it from being worth a damn.
While we're being honest, sources?
Quote from: Palehorse on May 10, 2010, 10:25:53 AM
Let's just hope the confirmation hearings don't rip her to shreds and make mountains out of molehills in order to get back at the POTUS. . .
. . .
I must be a psychic! :biggrin:
Quote from: Palehorse on May 11, 2010, 11:00:00 AM
I must be a psychic! :biggrin:
hey, I have NOT said one bad word about this lady, she may very well be a great justice....I am merely expanding on my dislike for democrats and the current potus....like i said, let the vetting begin, and if she passes the muster...then there will be no problems....
and it REALLY doesn't take a "psychic" to figure that she is going to get a rough time.....can you name one that has NOT had a rough process of becoming a justice in recent years?
U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese issued the following statement yesterday:
First and foremost, any nominee to a lifetime appointment to the United States Supreme Court must demonstrate a thorough fidelity to apply the Constitution as it was written, rather than as they would like to re-write it. Given Solicitor General Kagan's complete lack of judicial experience, and, for that matter, very limited litigation experience, Senators must not be rushed in their deliberative process. Because they have no prior judicial opinions to look to, Senators must conduct a more searching inquiry to determine if Kagan will decide cases based upon what is required by the Constitution as it is actually written, or whether she will rule based upon her own policy preferences.
Though Ms. Kagan has not written extensively on the role of a judge, the little she has written is troubling. In a law review article, she expressed agreement with the idea that the Court primarily exists to look out for the "despised and disadvantaged." The problem with this view—which sounds remarkably similar to President Obama's frequent appeals to judges ruling on grounds other than law–is that it allows judges to favor whichever particular client they view as "despised and disadvantaged." The judiciary is not to favor any one particular group, but to secure justice equally for all through impartial application of the Constitution and laws. Senators should vigorously question Ms. Kagan about such statements to determine whether she is truly committed to the rule of law. Nothing less should be expected from anyone appointed to a life-tenured position as one of the final arbiters of justice in our country.
Oh good, a nice biased opinion for you to hang your hat on. I was beginning to worry that you wouldn't find one. Nevermind the "sour-grapes" sound of it. It mirrors what you want. That's the important thing.
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on May 11, 2010, 01:41:27 PM
Oh good, a nice biased opinion for you to hang your hat on. I was beginning to worry that you wouldn't find one. Nevermind the "sour-grapes" sound of it. It mirrors what you want. That's the important thing.
that is really gettin old Sandy, and your buddies!!....it happens that it is a very well written statement that explains the conservative view of this nominiation...it was not mean, nor was it claiming anything but what it is. It applies to whomever want's to sit in that seat.....it sounds to me like you won't be happy until all those on the right just get all excited about anything that the left want's to do.....that is not the way it works Sandy, and it was no different when the repubs was in charge.....I think it helps with the balance of powers.....we gotta keep it from going too far to the left, you guys gotta keep it from going to far to the right.
Tell me Sandy, what was said that offends you in that statement?
For me personally, it is the front loaded bias surrounding a requirement that an individual had served as a judge prior to appointment. That is plain hogwash and alarmist propaganda! MANY of the SCOTUS members were NEVER judges prior to serving! 40 of them to be exact. . .
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/justices/nopriorexp.html (http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/justices/nopriorexp.html)
So there goes that argument. . .
Then there's the sour grapes aftertaste of it all. . .
I didn't say it offended me. I think it's laughable how you ignore everything except those sources directly in line w/what you want to believe. I'd be willing to bet there are well written statements out there by people who endorse her appointment. Yet, you won't consider those.
BTW, do you think he was upholding his own policy preferences when he assisted with the Iran Contra coverup?
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on May 11, 2010, 02:18:32 PM
I didn't say it offended me. I think it's laughable how you ignore everything except those sources directly in line w/what you want to believe. I'd be willing to bet there are well written statements out there by people who endorse her appointment. Yet, you won't consider those.
BTW, do you think he was upholding his own policy preferences when he assisted with the Iran Contra coverup?
My job as the resident conservative is to show you MY view of things and WHY I choose to believe in what I beliven in........to get YOUR view of things, all one has to do is turn on NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, PBS or read the NY Times..........and btw, this is NOT about anything but the new SCOTUS nominee.....start a new thread if you want.
Quote from: Palehorse on May 11, 2010, 02:14:23 PM
For me personally, it is the front loaded bias surrounding a requirement that an individual had served as a judge prior to appointment. That is plain hogwash and alarmist propaganda! MANY of the SCOTUS members were NEVER judges prior to serving! 40 of them to be exact. . .
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/justices/nopriorexp.html (http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/justices/nopriorexp.html)
So there goes that argument. . .
Then there's the sour grapes aftertaste of it all. . .
there has only been one in the last 40 years, so the process of vetting is probably no different than it was back in those days..the point is made that SINCE she has NO judical experience ( as a JUDGE) then a thorough vetting is not at all out of line.........but please, knock off the sourgrapes crap, the maturity level of discussion is becoming like a second grade recess.....
that seems to be the best response I get anymore......."sour grapes"...
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 11, 2010, 02:26:56 PM
there has only been one in the last 40 years, so the process of vetting is probably no different than it was back in those days..the point is made that SINCE she has NO judical experience ( as a JUDGE) then a thorough vetting is not at all out of line.........but please, knock off the sourgrapes crap, the maturity level of discussion is becoming like a second grade recess.....
that seems to be the best response I get anymore......."sour grapes"...
:rolleyes:
Sad how it is increasingly difficult to get any kind of response from you anymore, that doesn't attempt in some way to deride and degrade anything that doesn't fall into goose-step with current political propaganda.
Quote from: Palehorse on May 11, 2010, 02:30:57 PM
Sad how it is increasingly difficult to get any kind of response from you anymore, that doesn't attempt in some way to deride and degrade anything that doesn't fall into goose-step with current political propaganda.
I think I have been very fair, I hav not said anything negative about this lady, I have been attacked for posting a very well written peice about this person...I am merely defending myself....I honesty find it sad, where everything that does not say "obama is great"...you guys find offensive.....the fact is, his polls show, that he is NOT the all mighty popular POTUS, that many thought he was going to be.....it seems to me, that it is YOU guys who are falling for the political propaganda, and you just can't see it, because of you biasness....(is that a word?)
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 11, 2010, 02:41:56 PM
I think I have been very fair, I hav not said anything negative about this lady, I have been attacked for posting a very well written peice about this person...I am merely defending myself....I honesty find it sad, where everything that does not say "obama is great"...you guys find offensive.....the fact is, his polls show, that he is NOT the all mighty popular POTUS, that many thought he was going to be.....it seems to me, that it is YOU guys who are falling for the political propaganda, and you just can't see it, because of you biasness....(is that a word?)
Lincoln wasn't popular either. . .yet history indicates he is among our greatest presidents. . . In fact, the division within this country during Lincoln's time is remarkably similar to that which exists today. . .
Quote from: Palehorse on May 11, 2010, 02:51:11 PM
Lincoln wasn't popular either. . .yet history indicates he is among our greatest presidents. . . In fact, the division within this country during Lincoln's time is remarkably similar to that which exists today. . .
you mean like Bush and his tenure?
Quote from: The Troll on May 11, 2010, 09:34:19 AM
Henry, why don't you enlighten us with your intelligence and tell us 5 things that Obama has done to lose you trust. With #1 being the worse.
It would be very interesting to me, because after you voting for George W. and Prick Cheney twice and the for the dumb old man McCain and dumbass and stupid Sara Palin. Obama is a breath of fresh air.
In case you missed this from earlier...I will post it again...
I have pleanty of reasons WHY I dont' like him....
for one, he is a
liar!
"I'll get rid of earmarks"...
LIE
"Unemployment rate will be 8.5% without stimulus."...LIE...we passed the stimulus and it is 10%
"I am immediately instituting PayGo "Pay as you go""......BIG LIE...
"Recovery Act will save or create jobs"....WHEN?..OH, another
LIE"Guantanamo bay to be closed within a year"....LIE
"We have launched a housing plan that will help responsible families facing the threat of foreclosure lower their monthly payments and refinance their mortgages." ...the foreclosure rate has shot up the last quarter of 09....months AFTER he passed the bill..a
LIE!
"Health Care deals will be covered on C-span"......okay.. ..LIE
he said he would
"Have troops out of Iraq by March 31, 2009"...on his campaign trail....well, again just another big
LIE!! and that along with the massive spending ...well, I simply don't LIKE HIM!!! do I need to give MORE reasons?
I have no problem with WHY you don't like W or Cheney.............they are NOT my hero's...they made their mistakes...but, I would take them OVER what is happening today...in a heart beat.
Oh, there is more if you like to see them... ;)
Fair = Objective.
Objective you are not, Henry. You said so yourself.
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on May 11, 2010, 02:57:24 PM
Fair = Objective.
Objective you are not, Henry. You said so yourself.
and YOU guys HAVE?.... :confused: :rolleyes:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 11, 2010, 02:52:35 PM
you mean like Bush and his tenure?
Umm. . .
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 11, 2010, 02:22:54 PM
.........and btw, this is NOT about anything but the new SCOTUS nominee.....start a new thread if you want.
Don't like your own medicine? Now there's a friggin surprise!
Yes
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 11, 2010, 01:29:41 PM
U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese issued the following statement yesterday:
First and foremost, any nominee to a lifetime appointment to the United States Supreme Court must demonstrate a thorough fidelity to apply the Constitution as it was written, rather than as they would like to re-write it. Given Solicitor General Kagan's complete lack of judicial experience, and, for that matter, very limited litigation experience, Senators must not be rushed in their deliberative process. Because they have no prior judicial opinions to look to, Senators must conduct a more searching inquiry to determine if Kagan will decide cases based upon what is required by the Constitution as it is actually written, or whether she will rule based upon her own policy preferences.
Though Ms. Kagan has not written extensively on the role of a judge, the little she has written is troubling. In a law review article, she expressed agreement with the idea that the Court primarily exists to look out for the "despised and disadvantaged." The problem with this view—which sounds remarkably similar to President Obama's frequent appeals to judges ruling on grounds other than law–is that it allows judges to favor whichever particular client they view as "despised and disadvantaged." The judiciary is not to favor any one particular group, but to secure justice equally for all through impartial application of the Constitution and laws. Senators should vigorously question Ms. Kagan about such statements to determine whether she is truly committed to the rule of law. Nothing less should be expected from anyone appointed to a life-tenured position as one of the final arbiters of justice in our country.
Just who is Ed Meese. Holder of the Ronald Reagan Chair in public policy at the Heritage Foundation.
Distinguished Fellow at the Herbert Hoover Institution.
Now here in one person you would want to believe on a Democratic nomination for the Supreme Court.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 11, 2010, 02:54:27 PM
In case you missed this from earlier...I will post it again...
I have pleanty of reasons WHY I dont' like him....
for one, he is a liar!
"I'll get rid of earmarks"...LIE
"Unemployment rate will be 8.5% without stimulus."...LIE...we passed the stimulus and it is 10%
"I am immediately instituting PayGo "Pay as you go""......BIG LIE...
"Recovery Act will save or create jobs"....WHEN?..OH, another LIE
"Guantanamo bay to be closed within a year"....LIE
"We have launched a housing plan that will help responsible families facing the threat of foreclosure lower their monthly payments and refinance their mortgages." ...the foreclosure rate has shot up the last quarter of 09....months AFTER he passed the bill..a LIE!
"Health Care deals will be covered on C-span"......okay.. ..LIE
he said he would "Have troops out of Iraq by March 31, 2009"...on his campaign trail....well, again just another big LIE!!
and that along with the massive spending ...well, I simply don't LIKE HIM!!! do I need to give MORE reasons?
I have no problem with WHY you don't like W or Cheney.............they are NOT my hero's...they made their mistakes...but, I would take them OVER what is happening today...in a heart beat.
Oh, there is more if you like to see them... ;)
He hasn't lied on anything. If he was as powerful as your God, he would have fixed everything by now.
But your Republican Party and It's leaders had walked lin ockstep and voted 100% against everything he has tried to do.
Nobody of this earth had any idea of the total damage was done to this country by the Republican Party and Phil Gramm, when you people took off all the regulations off the banks and stockmark.
Everything that wrong with this country. Free trade, Losing jobs overseas, corupt bank and stockmarket traders and trades all started with Newt Gingrich's contract for America, Phil Gramm and the Republican Party.
For the corporation, to the corporation, by the corporation. The Republican Party.
Abner Mikva (Kagan's former boss - retired judge and Congressman)
said "It's great to have judicial experience, it's even greater to have the broader world experience that she's had. She's worked with the legislative branch. She's worked with the executive branch."
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on May 11, 2010, 03:56:53 PM
Abner Mikva (Kagan's former boss - retired judge and Congressman)
said "It's great to have judicial experience, it's even greater to have the broader world experience that she's had. She's worked with the legislative branch. She's worked with the executive branch."
as long as she will loyally defend the Constitution and rule of law, and extend her personal views because of her world experience.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 11, 2010, 04:04:06 PM
as long as she will loyally defend the Constitution and rule of law, and not extend her personal views because of her world experience.
Quote from: The Troll on May 11, 2010, 03:32:30 PM
He hasn't lied on anything. If he was as powerful as your God, he would have fixed everything by now.
But your Republican Party and It's leaders had walked lin ockstep and voted 100% against everything he has tried to do.
Nobody of this earth had any idea of the total damage was done to this country by the Republican Party and Phil Gramm, when you people took off all the regulations off the banks and stockmark.
Everything that wrong with this country. Free trade, Losing jobs overseas, corupt bank and stockmarket traders and trades all started with Newt Gingrich's contract for America, Phil Gramm and the Republican Party.
For the corporation, to the corporation, by the corporation. The Republican Party.
When did the Democrats lose control of the House and senate?
Quote from: Anne on May 11, 2010, 06:08:47 PM
When did the Democrats lose control of the House and senate?
I don't understand your question. Please explain. Are you talking having 50% of the 100 Senate votes or the required 60 votes to keep the Republicans from a filabuster. We never have had 60 Democrats
The Democrats have been had a majority in both houses for as long as President Obama has been in office, they could, if they were a solid front, pass almost anything they wanted too, as in the health insurance bill. You can't blame lack of President Obama's progress on the Republicans, the Democrats are not all behind him either.
He has not been able to deliver on his promises, as in Gitmo, unemployment, withdrawl from Iraq, etc. He made promises he probably couldn't keep which was wrong but probably no worse than most other politicians.
Quote from: Anne on May 11, 2010, 09:58:31 PM
The Democrats have been had a majority in both houses for as long as President Obama has been in office, they could, if they were a solid front, pass almost anything they wanted too, as in the health insurance bill. You can't blame lack of President Obama's progress on the Republicans, the Democrats are not all behind him either.
He has not been able to deliver on his promises, as in Gitmo, unemployment, withdrawl from Iraq, etc. He made promises he probably couldn't keep which was wrong but probably no worse than most other politicians.
Clearly a statement from one who has no inkling surrounding economics, military operations, SOP's or government.
Let's see, it was the Republican's fault when they had control of the congress because they got to do what ever they wanted but now that the congress is controlled by the Dems, and has been for almost 4yrs now, it's the Republicans fault because they are bulling up and being divisive. :confused:
Quote from: me on May 11, 2010, 10:12:02 PM
Let's see, it was the Republican's fault when they had control of the congress because they got to do what ever they wanted but now that the congress is controlled by the Dems, and has been for almost 4yrs now, it's the Republicans fault because they are bulling up and being divisive. :confused:
Quote from: Palehorse on May 11, 2010, 10:04:38 PM
Clearly a statement from one who has no inkling surrounding economics, military operations, SOP's or government.
Once again. . . :sm69:
The one where if it's a good thing the Dem's did it and if it's a bad thing blame it on the Republicans no matter who is President or in control of congress? Ya, I'm becoming all too familiar with that line of thinking.
Quote from: Palehorse on May 11, 2010, 10:04:38 PM
Clearly a statement from one who has no inkling surrounding economics, military operations, SOP's or government.
Quote from: me on May 11, 2010, 10:21:46 PM
The one where if it's a good thing the Dem's did it and if it's a bad thing blame it on the Republicans? Ya, I'm becoming all too familiar with that line of thinking.
Quote from: Palehorse on May 11, 2010, 10:17:37 PM
Once again. . . :sm69:
Quote from: Anne on May 11, 2010, 09:58:31 PM
The Democrats have been had a majority in both houses for as long as President Obama has been in office, they could, if they were a solid front, pass almost anything they wanted too, as in the health insurance bill. You can't blame lack of President Obama's progress on the Republicans, the Democrats are not all behind him either.
He has not been able to deliver on his promises, as in Gitmo, unemployment, withdrawl from Iraq, etc. He made promises he probably couldn't keep which was wrong but probably no worse than most other politicians.
The Democrats have never had the majority of the votes. The Republicans always want to count the 2 indepenents as democrat votes. With Joe Lieberman, who in hell knows which he's going to go. He only for himself.
But the Republicans are lucky. Running the Democratic Party is like herding cats. You can't get them to walk in lockstep like the Republican do with their members.
I'm quite sure you have heard of Dixiecrats. Republican dressed up like Democrats. Well, now we have the same thing, some of them call themselves Blue Dog Democrats. :turk:
With the election of Scot Brown from Massachesetts, there are 48 Democrats and 2 independents who meet with the Democrats. But when you deal with these lockstepping Republicans who wants to destroy this country by destroying Obama, we need 60 votes on practically everything.
I sure as hell would like to have 60 lockstepping Democrats. If this would happen all of the Republicans I know of would be down on their knees :pray: :pray: thinking that the THE END TIMES WERE HERE. :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
Quote from: Palehorse on May 11, 2010, 10:04:38 PM
Clearly a statement from one who has no inkling surrounding economics, military operations, SOP's or government.
Clearly, I didn't run for President and make those promises, President Obama did. He made those promises either knowing he could not keep them or was so uninformed that he really thought it would be easy to keep them. Either way what I said was true, he made promises, statements that were untrue and he couldn't keep his word. Anyone who thought about the problems of closing Gitmo, unemployment and withdrawl from Iraq were more complicated that just "doing it" is either stupid or deliberately misstating what he would do.
Quote from: The Troll on May 11, 2010, 10:57:00 PM
The Democrats have never had the majority of the votes. The Republicans always want to count the 2 indepenents as democrat votes. With Joe Lieberman, who in hell knows which he's going to go. He only for himself.
But the Republicans are lucky. Running the Democratic Party is like herding cats. You can't get them to walk in lockstep like the Republican do with their members.
I'm quite sure you have heard of Dixiecrats. Republican dressed up like Democrats. Well, now we have the same thing, some of them call themselves Blue Dog Democrats. :turk:
With the election of Scot Brown from Massachesetts, there are 48 Democrats and 2 independents who meet with the Democrats. But when you deal with these lockstepping Republicans who wants to destroy this country by destroying Obama, we need 60 votes on practically everything.
I sure as hell would like to have 60 lockstepping Democrats. If this would happen all of the Republicans I know of would be down on their knees :pray: :pray: thinking that the THE END TIMES WERE HERE. :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
Sorry to prove you wrong Troll but I think you'd better do some reading up on your history.
http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-1366
QuoteDixiecrats
The Dixiecrats were members of the States' Rights Democratic Party, which splintered from the Democratic Party in 1948.
Courtesy of the Strom Thurmond Institute of Government and Public Affairs, Clemson University
Strom Thurmond
The faction consisted of malcontented southern delegates to the Democratic Party who protested the insertion of a civil rights plank in the party platform and U.S. president Harry S. Truman's advocacy of that plank. Before the convention southern delegates were dismayed by Truman's 1948 executive order to desegregate the armed forces. With that backdrop many southern delegates were already concerned as they headed to the 1948 Democratic convention.
When the Democratic national convention convened in July 1948, some Alabama and Mississippi delegates were prepared to walk out of the convention if the civil rights platform passed. When it did, all of the Mississippi delegates and half of the Alabama delegates stormed out of the convention. On July 17, 1948, the Alabama and Mississippi delegations, and a few individual delegates from other southern states, met in Birmingham, Alabama, to select a presidential ticket to oppose the Democrats. The Dixiecrats chose South Carolina's governor, Strom Thurmond, for president and Fielding L. Wright, governor of Mississippi, for vice president.
The goal of the Dixiecrats was twofold. First, the splinter party hoped to deny both the Democrats and Republicans a majority in the electoral college, forcing the election into the U.S. House of Representatives.
Courtesy of the Strom Thurmond Institute of Government and Public Affairs, Clemson University
Strom Thurmond
Second, Dixiecrat leaders maneuvered to have the Thurmond-Wright ticket declared the "official" Democratic Party ticket on the ballots of all southern states. In the end this ploy succeeded only in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina, all Deep South states. Georgia was the lone Deep South state to remain loyal to the national Democratic Party; the Dixiecrat ticket appeared on Georgia ballots as a third party.
On election day 1948, the Dixiecrats won Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina but failed to win any state in which Thurmond appeared as a third-party candidate. In Georgia, Thurmond came in a distant second to Truman. A closer analysis of the Dixiecrat phenomenon revealed an interesting pattern: the Dixiecrats were most successful in the states and counties where black citizens were the most numerous. The Deep South states boasted the largest black populations, and white voters in those states were the most determined to preserve racial segregation and black disenfranchisement, and thus were more likely to vote for the Dixiecrat ticket. A similar trend is evident in county-level election returns, in which Thurmond was more likely to win counties where black populations were large and white voters feared racial change. In the border South, where blacks were less abundant and white voters were less preoccupied with segregation, support for the Dixiecrat candidates was negligible.
Although the Dixiecrats immediately dissolved after the 1948 election, their impact lasted much longer. Many white voters who initially cast Dixiecrat ballots gravitated back toward the Democratic Party only grudgingly, and they remained nominal Democrats at best. Ultimately, the Dixiecrat movement paved the way for the rise of the modern Republican Party in the South. Many former Dixiecrat supporters eventually became Republicans, as was highlighted by Strom Thurmond's conversion in the 1960s.
Suggested Reading
Jack Bass and Marilyn W. Thompson, Ol' Strom: An Unauthorized Biography of Strom Thurmond (Atlanta: Longstreet, 1998).
Kari Frederickson, The Dixiecrat Revolt and the End of the Solid South, 1932-1968 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2001).
V. O. Key, Southern Politics in State and Nation, new ed. (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1984).
Scott E. Buchanan, Columbus State University
Published 7/27/2004Quote
And another one but I'm only copying and pasting part of it and you'll need to click on the link at the end of what I post to read the rest.
Southern Strategy" was born.
Hubert Humphrey
At the 1948 Democratic National Convention, a group led by Senator Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota proposed some controversial new civil rights planks of racial integration and the reversal of Jim Crow laws to be included in the party platform. Southern Democrats were dismayed. President Harry S. Truman was caught in the middle for his recent executive order to racially integrate the armed forces. As a compromise, he proposed the adoption of only those planks that had been in the 1944 platform. That was not enough for the liberals. Truman's own civil rights initiatives had made the civil rights debate unavoidable.
The planks were adopted and 35 southern Democrats walked out in protest. They formed the States' Rights Democratic Party, which became popularly known as the Dixiecrats. Their campaign slogan was "Segregation Forever!" Their platform also included "states' rights" to freedom from governmental interference in an individual's or organization's prerogative to do business with whomever they wanted. http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1751.html
Sooo, I imagine that Anne and Henry have never been in a situation where they made a plan, had all intentions of following through and then reevaluated and/or changed the plan based on more information or other more pressing concerns. If they did, then I guess that makes them liars also or perhaps hypocrites. Whichever or both and to think those decisions were no where near as critical as the President's.
Henry, I'm sure you thought your Constitution remark was profound enough to post twice :rolleyes: I honestly don't understand your sudden concern about the constitution. The previous administration stomped all over it and there wasn't one peep of concern from you. At any rate, you don't know that she won't uphold the constitution so your angst is without merit...as usual.
Quote from: Anne on May 11, 2010, 11:41:42 PM
Clearly, I didn't run for President and make those promises, President Obama did. He made those promises either knowing he could not keep them or was so uninformed that he really thought it would be easy to keep them. Either way what I said was true, he made promises, statements that were untrue and he couldn't keep his word. Anyone who thought about the problems of closing Gitmo, unemployment and withdrawl from Iraq were more complicated that just "doing it" is either stupid or deliberately misstating what he would do.
How do you, all knowing one, know that he deliberately misstated what he would do.
What you are saying is, like you are going on a vacation in Northern Indiana and your going to go swimming in a strange lake. Your not going to know how deep, how warm, how cold, how clear or how polluted it is, until you get in it and get wet.
Obama didn't know, or anybody else knew just how much the Republicans had polluted the waters. The Republicans, bankersters and stockmarketeers knew, but they weren't talking. You want to blame Obama for what the Republicans kept secret. Hell, we can't even find out who who the oil executives were, Cheney brought to the White House, just before the price of of gasoline went to $4 a gallon.
Now you tell me about the 2 wars your wonderful George W. got us into. I want to see you defend him on Iraq. Hell, he wouldn't talk to his dad, George "42" about it. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Give us a break and quite watching Fox News for your news.
Oh, one more thing. How do you think the pair, you voted for, Old George McCain and the brain Sara Palin would be handling this mess your party has got us into. :flap: :flap: :flap:
Quote from: me on May 12, 2010, 01:36:21 AM
Sorry to prove you wrong Troll but I think you'd better do some reading up on your history.
http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-1366
QuoteDixiecrats
The Dixiecrats were members of the States' Rights Democratic Party, which splintered from the Democratic Party in 1948.
Courtesy of the Strom Thurmond Institute of Government and Public Affairs, Clemson University
Strom Thurmond
The faction consisted of malcontented southern delegates to the Democratic Party who protested the insertion of a civil rights plank in the party platform and U.S. president Harry S. Truman's advocacy of that plank. Before the convention southern delegates were dismayed by Truman's 1948 executive order to desegregate the armed forces. With that backdrop many southern delegates were already concerned as they headed to the 1948 Democratic convention.
When the Democratic national convention convened in July 1948, some Alabama and Mississippi delegates were prepared to walk out of the convention if the civil rights platform passed. When it did, all of the Mississippi delegates and half of the Alabama delegates stormed out of the convention. On July 17, 1948, the Alabama and Mississippi delegations, and a few individual delegates from other southern states, met in Birmingham, Alabama, to select a presidential ticket to oppose the Democrats. The Dixiecrats chose South Carolina's governor, Strom Thurmond, for president and Fielding L. Wright, governor of Mississippi, for vice president.
The goal of the Dixiecrats was twofold. First, the splinter party hoped to deny both the Democrats and Republicans a majority in the electoral college, forcing the election into the U.S. House of Representatives.
Courtesy of the Strom Thurmond Institute of Government and Public Affairs, Clemson University
Strom Thurmond
Second, Dixiecrat leaders maneuvered to have the Thurmond-Wright ticket declared the "official" Democratic Party ticket on the ballots of all southern states. In the end this ploy succeeded only in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina, all Deep South states. Georgia was the lone Deep South state to remain loyal to the national Democratic Party; the Dixiecrat ticket appeared on Georgia ballots as a third party.
On election day 1948, the Dixiecrats won Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina but failed to win any state in which Thurmond appeared as a third-party candidate. In Georgia, Thurmond came in a distant second to Truman. A closer analysis of the Dixiecrat phenomenon revealed an interesting pattern: the Dixiecrats were most successful in the states and counties where black citizens were the most numerous. The Deep South states boasted the largest black populations, and white voters in those states were the most determined to preserve racial segregation and black disenfranchisement, and thus were more likely to vote for the Dixiecrat ticket. A similar trend is evident in county-level election returns, in which Thurmond was more likely to win counties where black populations were large and white voters feared racial change. In the border South, where blacks were less abundant and white voters were less preoccupied with segregation, support for the Dixiecrat candidates was negligible.
Although the Dixiecrats immediately dissolved after the 1948 election, their impact lasted much longer. Many white voters who initially cast Dixiecrat ballots gravitated back toward the Democratic Party only grudgingly, and they remained nominal Democrats at best. Ultimately, the Dixiecrat movement paved the way for the rise of the modern Republican Party in the South. Many former Dixiecrat supporters eventually became Republicans, as was highlighted by Strom Thurmond's conversion in the 1960s.
Suggested Reading
Jack Bass and Marilyn W. Thompson, Ol' Strom: An Unauthorized Biography of Strom Thurmond (Atlanta: Longstreet, 1998).
Kari Frederickson, The Dixiecrat Revolt and the End of the Solid South, 1932-1968 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2001).
V. O. Key, Southern Politics in State and Nation, new ed. (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1984).
Scott E. Buchanan, Columbus State University
Published 7/27/2004Quote
And another one but I'm only copying and pasting part of it and you'll need to click on the link at the end of what I post to read the rest.
Southern Strategy" was born.
Hubert Humphrey
At the 1948 Democratic National Convention, a group led by Senator Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota proposed some controversial new civil rights planks of racial integration and the reversal of Jim Crow laws to be included in the party platform. Southern Democrats were dismayed. President Harry S. Truman was caught in the middle for his recent executive order to racially integrate the armed forces. As a compromise, he proposed the adoption of only those planks that had been in the 1944 platform. That was not enough for the liberals. Truman's own civil rights initiatives had made the civil rights debate unavoidable.
The planks were adopted and 35 southern Democrats walked out in protest. They formed the States' Rights Democratic Party, which became popularly known as the Dixiecrats. Their campaign slogan was "Segregation Forever!" Their platform also included "states' rights" to freedom from governmental interference in an individual's or organization's prerogative to do business with whomever they wanted. http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1751.html
Just where was I wrong about the Dixiecrats. They were the most evil racist bastards in American. They were KKK assholes. They were out to keep the blacks in slavery and old Strom Thumond fathered a mixed black child, which he payed to keep quiet.
Everything they did was to keep the blacks down and to keep themselvess in power. They were the scum of the earth.
And you want to call them Democrats, they voted with the Republicans than the Democrats. All you want to do is try to defile the Democratic Party with filthy lies.
Let's get your mind out of the :toilet:
Quote from: The Troll on May 12, 2010, 07:29:32 AM
How do you, all knowing one, know that he deliberately misstated what he would do.
What you are saying is, like you are going on a vacation in Northern Indiana and your going to go swimming in a strange lake. Your not going to know how deep, how warm, how cold, how clear or how polluted it is, until you get in it and get wet.
Obama didn't know, or anybody else knew just how much the Republicans had polluted the waters. The Republicans, bankersters and stockmarketeers knew, but they weren't talking. You want to blame Obama for what the Republicans kept secret. Hell, we can't even find out who who the oil executives were, Cheney brought to the White House, just before the price of of gasoline went to $4 a gallon.
Now you tell me about the 2 wars your wonderful George W. got us into. I want to see you defend him on Iraq. Hell, he wouldn't talk to his dad, George "42" about it. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Give us a break and quite watching Fox News for your news.
Oh, one more thing. How do you think the pair, you voted for, Old George McCain and the brain Sara Palin would be handling this mess your party has got us into. :flap: :flap: :flap:
Try reading more carefully. I said maybe he was just so uninformed he didn't realize he actually couldn't do what he said he would do. Maybe lack of research? Poor support from his staff? Oh I did not say one word about Mr. Bush. You had to dig deep for that one. Why is it that everyone one who says anything remotely critical of President Obama is automatically a racist or a Republican? He is not God you know or the devil either.
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on May 12, 2010, 05:35:36 AM
Henry, I'm sure you thought your Constitution remark was profound enough to post twice :rolleyes: I honestly don't understand your sudden concern about the constitution. The previous administration stomped all over it and there wasn't one peep of concern from you. At any rate, you don't know that she won't uphold the constitution so your angst is without merit...as usual.
Listen Sandy, pull your head out of your behind for a moment....I never claimed she won't uphold the constitution......for some reason, you love to put words in my mouth...I simply beleive that the vetting process must be extra thorough, because there are no cases to determine HOW she would intrepret the law or the constitution...where as before with judges who HAVE had cases indicating how they would rule on particular issues...I was not TRYING to be profound, just wanted for some folks to be sure to read an intelligent statement regarding this potential appointment.....and btw, the previous admin did not stomp on the Constitution, but this one is shredding it.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 12, 2010, 08:31:56 AM
Listen Sandy, pull your head out of your behind for a moment....I never claimed she won't uphold the constitution......for some reason, you love to put words in my mouth...I simply beleive that the vetting process must be extra thorough, because there are no cases to determine HOW she would intrepret the law or the constitution...where as before with judges who HAVE had cases indicating how they would rule on particular issues...I was not TRYING to be profound, just wanted for some folks to be sure to read an intelligent statement regarding this potential appointment.....and btw, the previous admin did not stomp on the Constitution, but this one is shredding it.
What do you mean this one is sure shredding it. Name one where your constitutional rights are being shredded. Make a real one not just the usual B.S.
The last appointment made by Bush. Roberts, sure prove the intent of the Republican to to stack the deck in favor of the corporations.
Remember the Ruling by the Roberts lead court of giving the corporations the same standings of a human being. Plus the unlimited amout of money they can spend on getting their shills elected.
I think your the one who needs to get their head out of their ass. Your whole life and sight must have a brown sheen to it.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 12, 2010, 08:31:56 AM
Listen Sandy, pull your head out of your behind for a moment....I never claimed she won't uphold the constitution......for some reason, you love to put words in my mouth...I simply beleive that the vetting process must be extra thorough, because there are no cases to determine HOW she would intrepret the law or the constitution...where as before with judges who HAVE had cases indicating how they would rule on particular issues...I was not TRYING to be profound, just wanted for some folks to be sure to read an intelligent statement regarding this potential appointment.....and btw, the previous admin did not stomp on the Constitution, but this one is shredding it.
How can anyone be informed when the banks and the stockmarket a hiding their stealing and the agencies who are to rate the performance and trustworthiness are lying. All of the CEO's lying. How would anyone on the outside and out of the loop do any research. The Bush administration was like a Blackhole. Anything that went in never came out, unless they want to control the situation.
What make me mad is the Republicans have poisoned the Kool-aid well. They have got a lot of people drinking the poison Kool-aid, that if you reelect us and put us back into office we won't lie, cheat and steal anymore. Well, I say to that is, :bsflag:
Henry, do you read what you write?
There are other methods to assess Ms. Kagen's credentials. (R) Susan Collins - Maine said "....I look forward to meeting her to learn more about her experience and the judicial philosphy she would bring to the court. Ms Kagen has an impressive resume of dedicated public service and strong legal credentials but she does not have extensive writings by which one can assess her judicial philosophy. In the coming weeks, I will closely examine her record as U.S. Solicitor General. I will also follow the Judiciary Committee hearings so that I can better assess how she might approach issues as a judge."
So again, your concern about the constitution is unfounded and reactionary based on your blind partisanship. Thankfully, other people are willing to examine the complete evidence.
As for the previous administration and the constitution ... I guess your ignorance of the facts would justify why you didn't whine about it during the last administration, but your claim of continued ignorance when you're attempting to hold this administration to your set standard is disingenuous...at best
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on May 12, 2010, 10:55:53 AM
Henry, do you read what you write?
There are other methods to assess Ms. Kagen's credentials. (R) Susan Collins - Maine said "....I look forward to meeting her to learn more about her experience and the judicial philosphy she would bring to the court. Ms Kagen has an impressive resume of dedicated public service and strong legal credentials but she does not have extensive writings by which one can assess her judicial philosophy. In the coming weeks, I will closely examine her record as U.S. Solicitor General. I will also follow the Judiciary Committee hearings so that I can better assess how she might approach issues as a judge."
So again, your concern about the constitution is unfounded and reactionary based on your blind partisanship. Thankfully, other people are willing to examine the complete evidence.
As for the previous administration and the constitution ... I guess your ignorance of the facts would justify why you didn't whine about it during the last administration, but your claim of continued ignorance when you're attempting to hold this administration to your set standard is disingenuous...at best
that is the pot calling the kettle black, but you and your friends on here are so blindly biased, you simply write off anyone who remotely opposes your views as disingenuous....
seriously folks, try looking in the mirror for few seconds before you post....you are no different that what you accuse me and me of....
if obama says she is a good judge then that is all we need.........just sign her up!!!!
THAT is the liberal mentality. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 12, 2010, 11:01:41 AM
seriously folks, try looking in the mirror for few seconds before you post....you are no different that what you accuse me and me of....
Yes we are. We don't blindly post every piece of trash that hits our in-box without checking it out first.
Remember ... grapes can grow in England, and that luxury "U.S." prison was in Europe. :eek:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 12, 2010, 11:02:55 AM
if obama says she is a good judge then that is all we need.........just sign her up!!!!
THAT is the liberal mentality. :rolleyes:
No, that is the extremist, reactionary, knee-jerk, reaction one expects from those with an agenda. . .
I don't think anyone here has stated this candidate should be an automatic appointment, but rather expressed hopes that this type of less than admirable foundation would not be utilized as a means to trash an otherwise well qualified candidate.
A hope that, if this forum can be utilized as a gauge of national / party perspectives, is akin to pissing into the wind.
Quote from: Olias on May 12, 2010, 11:11:28 AM
Yes we are. We don't blindly post every piece of trash that hits our in-box without checking it out first.
Remember ... grapes can grow in England, and that luxury "U.S." prison was in Europe. :eek:
and I don't post EVERY piece of trash that hits my in-box.....just the pieces of trash that I find amusing....
Here is an example of what I am talking about....
" I think this is an EXCELLENT choice. As Solicitor General, she's already familiar with all of the justices, and from what I read, has a good relationship with all of them. I think she will work well with them if confirmed. :clap:
"
this poster read a few lines from a new article about her, and he has already decided she is a great choice.....there had not even been a chance to post anything else about her.....becasue Obama said!!..
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 12, 2010, 11:13:21 AM
and I don't post EVERY piece of trash that hits my in-box.....just the pieces of trash that I find amusing....
So easily amused! So maybe you don't post EVERY piece of trash? Yet you sprinkle in the trash often enough that it makes all of your posts suspect.
and how do you know that poster hasn't read more "than a few lines"...you assume much :rolleyes:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 12, 2010, 11:17:17 AM
Here is an example of what I am talking about....
" I think this is an EXCELLENT choice. As Solicitor General, she's already familiar with all of the justices, and from what I read, has a good relationship with all of them. I think she will work well with them if confirmed. :clap:
"
this poster read a few lines from a new article about her, and he has already decided she is a great choice.....there had not even been a chance to post anything else about her.....becasue Obama said!!..
Actually, that's not true at all HH. I started reading about her when she was being vetted when Justice Souter retired, as I did about all of the top candidates at the time. BTW, I'm quite sure I've read more about
all of them than you have. :wink:
She needs to be questioned just the same as Bush's appointees were period.
Quote from: me on May 12, 2010, 12:20:02 PM
She needs to be questioned just the same as Bush's appointees were period.
Oh NO! Me...not if a democrat nominates one........no need to ask ANY questions.....she has GOT to be a great person....AND a great judge.
http://www.youtube.com/v/HjVeazhEug0
VULGAR LANGUAGE WARNING
Quote from: Palehorse on May 12, 2010, 12:22:04 PM
http://www.youtube.com/v/HjVeazhEug0
VULGAR LANGUAGE WARNING
Uh, ya have to have one before ya can lose it...... :razz:
Quote from: me on May 12, 2010, 12:27:36 PM
Uh, ya have to have one before ya can lose it...... :razz:
At least
I am not bringing a butter knife to a sword fight!
When the Senate ceases to engage nominees in a meaningful discussion of legal issues...the confirmation process takes on an air of vacuity and farce, and the Senate becomes incapable of either properly evaluating nominees or appropriately educating the public....
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 12, 2010, 12:59:55 PM
When the Senate ceases to engage nominees in a meaningful discussion of legal issues...the confirmation process takes on an air of vacuity and farce, and the Senate becomes incapable of either properly evaluating nominees or appropriately educating the public....
Remember that when the confirmation hearings start. . .
Quote from: Palehorse on May 12, 2010, 12:58:39 PM
At least I am not bringing a butter knife to a sword fight!
You certainly do bring a lot of plastic swords though. :razz:
http://www.youtube.com/v/HjVeazhEug0
VULGAR LANGUAGE WARNING
Quote from: Palehorse on May 12, 2010, 02:06:30 PM
http://www.youtube.com/v/HjVeazhEug0
VULGAR LANGUAGE WARNING
:sm69:
Quote from: Palehorse on May 12, 2010, 01:49:38 PM
Remember that when the confirmation hearings start. . .
Likewise...
Quote from: me on May 12, 2010, 12:20:02 PM
She needs to be questioned just the same as Bush's appointees were period.
What good does it to question or should is say grill. They questioned pretty boy Roberts and he stuck to his story and what did we get, a predatory capitalist corporation loving Supreme Court Judge.
Either you have morals or you don't. You can see how the court is stacked for the corporations with some of the rulings they have passed down lately.:@#%&:
Hum, so now you're agreeing that Bush's appointee's were "grilled" and saying it did no good so why not let Kegan off the hook and just blindly approve her. You're afraid the same thing is going to happen to Kagan huh? Somehow I doubt that will be the case even though you all will cry foul at any questioning she does get.
Quote from: The Troll on May 12, 2010, 03:27:13 PM
What good does it to question or should is say grill. They questioned pretty boy Roberts and he stuck to his story and what did we get, a predatory capitalist corporation loving Supreme Court Judge.
Either you have morals or you don't. You can see how the court is stacked for the corporations with some of the rulings they have passed down lately.:@#%&:
Quote from: me on May 12, 2010, 05:23:53 PM
Hum, so now you're agreeing that Bush's appointee's were "grilled" and saying it did no good so why not let Kegan off the hook and just blindly approve her. You're afraid the same thing is going to happen to Kagan huh? Somehow I doubt that will be the case even though you all will cry foul at any questioning she does get.
I don't doubt that your Republican Party will come up with something slimy and shitty on her that will be a lie.. When it come to slim, filth, shit and just, out right lies. There is no entity on earth and probably the Universe that can compare with the shit and lies that comes out of the your Republican party.
Your party will find some lier's, who will "Swift Boat" her, just like they did John Kerry over his war record. Lie, after lie, after lie.
There is absolutely no Republican leader that I have any respect for or would trust them holding my wallet nor one I would buy a car from. Let alone trust them with small children.
"ME" you really have no idea how I hate the Republican Party and what it stand for and what it has done to the United States of America.
Most likely your party will find someone who will swear the she's gay because she play softball when she was a girl.
The Troll :flag: :no1: :trustme: :seeya2:
Quote from: The Troll on May 12, 2010, 07:17:47 PM
I don't doubt that your Republican Party will come up with something slimy and shitty on her that will be a lie.. When it come to slim, filth, shit and just, out right lies. There is no entity on earth and probably the Universe that can compare with the shit and lies that comes out of the your Republican party.
Your party will find some lier's, who will "Swift Boat" her, just like they did John Kerry over his war record. Lie, after lie, after lie.
There is absolutely no Republican leader that I have any respect for or would trust them holding my wallet nor one I would buy a car from. Let alone trust them with small children.
"ME" you really have no idea how I hate the Republican Party and what it stand for and what it has done to the United States of America.
Most likely your party will find someone who will swear the she's gay because she play softball when she was a girl.
The Troll :flag: :no1: :trustme: :seeya2:
And that would have what to do with anything? I'd bet your eyes are brown...dark brown.
Quote from: me on May 12, 2010, 07:45:55 PM
And that would have what to do with anything? I'd bet your eyes are brown...dark brown.
:groan: It has allready been brought up on your TV channel. How she sorta of looked gay. And your Wallstreet Journal has printed the picture of her playing softball and that has brought up comments.
So your party has allready started the shit. :pink: :pink: :pink: :flap: :flap: :yes: :bliss: :bliss:
Quote from: The Troll on May 12, 2010, 11:11:20 PM
:groan: It has allready been brought up on your TV channel. How she sorta of looked gay. And your Wallstreet Journal has printed the picture of her playing softball and that has brought up comments.
So your party has allready started the shit. :pink: :pink: :pink: :flap: :flap: :yes: :bliss: :bliss:
Ya, O'Reilley was talking about how ridiculous it was that it was brought up last night saying it had nothing to do with how she might perform anyway. Quit looking for stuff where there is nothing there are too many important things going on than whether someone is gay or not.
Quote from: me on May 13, 2010, 01:26:39 AM
Ya, O'Reilley was talking about how ridiculous it was that it was brought up last night saying it had nothing to do with how she might perform anyway. Quit looking for stuff where there is nothing there are too many important things going on than whether someone is gay or not.
:trustme: The Republican's are just getting started, just wait, look for a "SLIM JOB" it one of the best things the Republicans do. You seen what they did to America in just 8 short years. They sure "SLIMED AMERICA".
But, I got to say something about the crazy old farts in the Tea Party. They are throwing out some of the old party insiders who thought they were going to die office. Go Tea Party. :pink:
"A Supreme Court Nominee With No Judicial Experience Requires Extreme Scrutiny"...".She is going to need to be more forthcoming"...
Barack Obama, 10/14/2005
http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-flashback-a-supreme-court-nominee-with-no-judicial-experience-requires-extreme-scrutiny/ (http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-flashback-a-supreme-court-nominee-with-no-judicial-experience-requires-extreme-scrutiny/)
Went to you site, just the same old thing. :deadhorse: :rifle: another Republican trash site.
Well, there is one thing I can say about you, you never look at the other side. Just the same oh, same oh. They say you are what you eat. You can take it from there. :bsflag:
I just read where key moderate republicans have already come out endorsing Kagan on key hot-button issues. Obtaining their votes would "filibuster-proof" her nomination should democrats unite in supporting her. :smile:
Quote from: Palehorse on May 13, 2010, 09:26:29 PM
I just read where key moderate republicans have already come out endorsing Kagan on key hot-button issues. Obtaining their votes would "filibuster-proof" her nomination should democrats unite in supporting her. :smile:
I think it is outrageous that democrat OR republican should be "ready" to accept her without FIRST going through a vetting process.....you guys are just ready to sign her up cuz yer boy said she was a good one...
I have no problem with her as long as there is nothing outrageous with her......I fully expect her to be left of center, that is just politics....it would be no different if it was the other way around....but dang guys, c'mon....we don't really know that much about her, so let's go through the process.
I liked the way everybody just ignored what Obama said back in 2005....cept for troll, and he just wrote it off as just a right wing nut job website.....those was Obama's words.
the double standard that is on this forum is un-freakin-believable... :rolleyes:
and YOU always have a way of turning it around....you ALL should go work for MSNBC!!! :razz: :spooked: :rolleyes:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 13, 2010, 10:52:10 PMI think it is outrageous that democrat OR republican should be "ready" to accept her without FIRST going through a vetting process.....you guys are just ready to sign her up cuz yer boy said she was a good one... I have no problem with her as long as there is nothing outrageous with her......I fully expect her to be left of center, that is just politics....it would be no different if it was the other way around....but dang guys, c'mon....we don't really know that much about her, so let's go through the process. I liked the way everybody just ignored what Obama said back in 2005....cept for troll, and he just wrote it off as just a right wing nut job website.....those was Obama's words. the double standard that is on this forum is un-freakin-believable... :rolleyes: and YOU always have a way of turning it around....you ALL should go work for MSNBC!!! :razz: :spooked: :rolleyes:
She already been vetted several times. She has been vetted of all of the high government offices she has held.
If she had anything against her, the Republicans would have already have beaten her head in. She clean and you know it.
You should be made to watch MSNBC. I have never caught them in a lie. I sure can't say that for Fox. All you want to do is to cause trouble and try it get rid of Obama.
FORGET IT, HE'S GOT THREE MORE YEARS. :clap: :clap: :clap: :thumbsup: :rotfl: :rotfl:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 13, 2010, 10:52:10 PM
I think it is outrageous that democrat OR republican should be "ready" to accept her without FIRST going through a vetting process.....you guys are just ready to sign her up cuz yer boy said she was a good one...
I have no problem with her as long as there is nothing outrageous with her......I fully expect her to be left of center, that is just politics....it would be no different if it was the other way around....but dang guys, c'mon....we don't really know that much about her, so let's go through the process.
I liked the way everybody just ignored what Obama said back in 2005....cept for troll, and he just wrote it off as just a right wing nut job website.....those was Obama's words.
the double standard that is on this forum is un-freakin-believable... :rolleyes:
and YOU always have a way of turning it around....you ALL should go work for MSNBC!!! :razz: :spooked: :rolleyes:
Double standard? Like how you defend treasonous George Bush or would have made that air head Sarah Palin VP without knowing anything about her? It's okay for you to scrutinize and criticize everything a democrat does or even worse make mountains out of EVERY molehill, but then you have the nerve to cry and whine about double standards?
You may want to figure out what the term means. Not one person in this thread has said anything about appointing her without going through the entire rigorous process. I can't speak for the others, but I seriously doubt that they "like her" because "our boy" (ha! 'boy' showin' ur true colors Henry) said so.
Gee whiz.....ya'll might not be so happy about the nomination after all. They've found she has sided with a lot of Bush's views on some key issues and also is has sided with anti abortionists on some things......She has also been against some of Clinton's views.... :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
Quote from: me on May 16, 2010, 07:37:40 PM
Gee whiz.....ya'll might not be so happy about the nomination after all. They've found she has sided with a lot of Bush's views on some key issues and also is has sided with anti abortionists on some things......She has also been against some of Clinton's views.... :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
Who cares who she sided with. Not everybody is right all the time, except you "ME".
The main thing, is she smart, is she fair, and is she honest. By the jobs she has in government, she has been trusted for a long long time. How many times has she already been vetted, three or four times.
Just another hard head, trouble making butthole Republican. All you people want is to make Obama look bad and you're willing to pull the counrtry down, to do it. :finger2:
Quote from: The Troll on May 16, 2010, 08:04:40 PM
Who cares who she sided with. Not everybody is right all the time, except you "ME".
The main thing, is she smart, is she fair, and is she honest. By the jobs she has in government, she has been trusted for a long long time. How many times has she already been vetted, three or four times.
Just another hard head, trouble making butthole Republican. All you people want is to make Obama look bad and you're willing to pull the counrtry down, to do it. :finger2:
Nope, not me. Ya'll were the ones that started on Fox and the Republican's giving her a hard time and as it turns out they are more favorable toward her than some of her own party. :biggrin: :razz: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
Quote from: me on May 17, 2010, 02:01:55 PM
Nope, not me. Ya'll were the ones that started on Fox and the Republican's giving her a hard time and as it turns out they are more favorable toward her than some of her own party. :biggrin: :razz: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
:bsflag: :bsflag: :bsflag: :bsflag: :bsflag: :bsflag: :bsflag: