Navy Pride
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2005
- Messages
- 39,883
- Reaction score
- 3,070
- Location
- Pacific NW
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
ShamMol said:No offense, but right now the President is "desperate" as you put it to show that he cares and is doing his job. What is it now-7 trips to the gulf region in a week? We get it dude, you are on the job....great. Basically, the Dems are opposing right now because they can. You may say...no! They can't oppose, but when the President's approval numbers go into the 30s and 40s, that means that they automatically become attack machines. Live with it.
And Gordon...David Drier was the presumed choice-which FOX, AP, everyone was reporting would take over most of the responsibilities. Well, he is taking over some, just not as much as they originally thought. Basically, to you, they are never allowed to be wrong, but that is of no great surprise. Wow...I just defended FOX.
Now, onto Roberts. I am shocked that he got that many no votes. The Dems know that this is not the fight they need to fight and I am astounded that they would be so callous as to assume the American public will continue to be angry with the President. Basically-Roberts was a conservative, but one we can live with (as a mod lib myself)...the fight is now to replace the mod conservative seat that OConnor is leaving. Since Roberts was replacing a conservative witha conservative, then he was bound to face less opposition.
The battle the Dems need to focus on is the next one. The next battle to come is the one to replace O'Connor-and that is where they need to focus their attention. As my government professor put it-"It will be high holy hell for both sides and as a Republican, I think that the Democrats are going to need to fight tooth to nail." He was dead on. If Bush picks an Alberto Gonzales or Janice Rogers Brown, as qualified legally as they may be, the Dems need to put that aside and say-we need to protect the citizens we hold office to protect. That simple.
To quote Jon Stewart-the time for old ways of doing things ended when Clinton left office. And the other quote I can do..."You can act like a nut, but not look like one." Those were the old rules and now that we have entered into the time of partisanship, where a nuclear option is even an option. Basically-all rules are out and that is the same for when and if the Dems are in power and the Repubs are not. I don't think we will ever go back to the days where Sueter and Ginsburg get votes in the 80s and the 90s.Deegan said:Can you dig deep in your heart and mind, and explain why a Ginsberg gets a 96 to 3, and a Roberts gets a 78 to 22, why? Someone please explain this to me, a woman who suggested we need to allow men and women to be integrated in our prisons, or that the fed should pay for abortion, or that the government should allow bigomy, just for starters. Oh, and my personal fav. All children should have sex at twelve, how did this nut get through with such a non-partisan vote?
Good luck to you too. I just can't wait to see how people are going to not ride the coatails of the president like they did in the 02 and 04 elections, especially seeing the most recent Ohio election where a Republican who was slated to get 20% more than her Dem opponent only won by 2% or 3%. Why did she only win by the much even though outspending her opponent outrageously, even though she had the same policies as the President (AND SAID SO), had more time to campaign than her opponent (who was in Iraq for the vast part of her campaign), etc, etc. Basically, Republicans will have to win office on their own again and stop relying on the President.Answer, we are better then you, more responsible, more traditonal, less partisan, you really look like crap today, good luck in 06 and 08!
Deegan said:Can you dig deep in your heart and mind, and explain why a Ginsberg gets a 96 to 3, and a Roberts gets a 78 to 22, why? Someone please explain this to me, a woman who suggested we need to allow men and women to be integrated in our prisons, or that the fed should pay for abortion, or that the government should allow bigomy, just for starters. Oh, and my personal fav. All children should have sex at twelve, how did this nut get through with such a non-partisan vote?
Answer, we are better then you, more responsible, more traditonal, less partisan, you really look like crap today, good luck in 06 and 08!
ShamMol said:To quote Jon Stewart-the time for old ways of doing things ended when Clinton left office. And the other quote I can do..."You can act like a nut, but not look like one." Those were the old rules and now that we have entered into the time of partisanship, where a nuclear option is even an option. Basically-all rules are out and that is the same for when and if the Dems are in power and the Repubs are not. I don't think we will ever go back to the days where Sueter and Ginsburg get votes in the 80s and the 90s.
But to be honest, the Republicans started this process off in 1994 by opposing lower court nominees for no reason whatsoever (led in their efforts by Trent, good old party himself). Basically, the Repubs and Dems started down this road and will not return and both sides will blame each other. I blame Trent, you will most likely blame the fillibusters, and it won't change-especially the fact that we will not go back to the old way of appointing judges.
Hope that was clear.
Good luck to you too. I just can't wait to see how people are going to not ride the coatails of the president like they did in the 02 and 04 elections, especially seeing the most recent Ohio election where a Republican who was slated to get 20% more than her Dem opponent only won by 2% or 3%. Why did she only win by the much even though outspending her opponent outrageously, even though she had the same policies as the President (AND SAID SO), had more time to campaign than her opponent (who was in Iraq for the vast part of her campaign), etc, etc. Basically, Republicans will have to win office on their own again and stop relying on the President.
But what you said was a personal attack, so the chances that any of what I just told you will sink in are unlikely, isn't that right?
ShamMol said:No offense, but right now the President is "desperate" as you put it to show that he cares and is doing his job. What is it now-7 trips to the gulf region in a week? We get it dude, you are on the job....great. Basically, the Dems are opposing right now because they can. You may say...no! They can't oppose, but when the President's approval numbers go into the 30s and 40s, that means that they automatically become attack machines. Live with it.
And Gordon...David Drier was the presumed choice-which FOX, AP, everyone was reporting would take over most of the responsibilities. Well, he is taking over some, just not as much as they originally thought. Basically, to you, they are never allowed to be wrong, but that is of no great surprise. Wow...I just defended FOX.
Now, onto Roberts. I am shocked that he got that many no votes. The Dems know that this is not the fight they need to fight and I am astounded that they would be so callous as to assume the American public will continue to be angry with the President. Basically-Roberts was a conservative, but one we can live with (as a mod lib myself)...the fight is now to replace the mod conservative seat that OConnor is leaving. Since Roberts was replacing a conservative witha conservative, then he was bound to face less opposition.
The battle the Dems need to focus on is the next one. The next battle to come is the one to replace O'Connor-and that is where they need to focus their attention. As my government professor put it-"It will be high holy hell for both sides and as a Republican, I think that the Democrats are going to need to fight tooth to nail." He was dead on. If Bush picks an Alberto Gonzales or Janice Rogers Brown, as qualified legally as they may be, the Dems need to put that aside and say-we need to protect the citizens we hold office to protect. That simple.
Since you didn't respond...Deegan said:LOL, it is sad that more and more Dems are quoting Stewart these days, it really shows the place in which you find yourselves, a comedy of errors.
The reason so many were held up is simple, they were more nuts then this nut! You offer only loons, so we must finally settle on the lesser loon, too bad that was Ginsberg.
ShamMol said:Since you didn't respond...
To quote Jon Stewart-the time for old ways of doing things ended when Clinton left office. And the other quote I can do..."You can act like a nut, but not look like one." Those were the old rules and now that we have entered into the time of partisanship, where a nuclear option is even an option. Basically-all rules are out and that is the same for when and if the Dems are in power and the Repubs are not. I don't think we will ever go back to the days where Sueter and Ginsburg get votes in the 80s and the 90s.
But to be honest, the Republicans started this process off in 1994 by opposing lower court nominees for no reason whatsoever (led in their efforts by Trent, good old party himself). Basically, the Repubs and Dems started down this road and will not return and both sides will blame each other. I blame Trent, you will most likely blame the fillibusters, and it won't change-especially the fact that we will not go back to the old way of appointing judges.
Hope that was clear.
Good luck to you too. I just can't wait to see how people are going to not ride the coatails of the president like they did in the 02 and 04 elections, especially seeing the most recent Ohio election where a Republican who was slated to get 20% more than her Dem opponent only won by 2% or 3%. Why did she only win by the much even though outspending her opponent outrageously, even though she had the same policies as the President (AND SAID SO), had more time to campaign than her opponent (who was in Iraq for the vast part of her campaign), etc, etc. Basically, Republicans will have to win office on their own again and stop relying on the President.
But what you said was a personal attack, so the chances that any of what I just told you will sink in are unlikely, isn't that right?
Navy Pride said:This is a great victory for the president and for his legacy...
It shoud have been 100-0 but the usuual suspects Kennedy, Kerry, and Clinton voted no......They have to please the far left of the democratic party.......
ShamMol said:No offense, but right now the President is "desperate" as you put it to show that he cares and is doing his job. What is it now-7 trips to the gulf region in a week? We get it dude, you are on the job....great. Basically, the Dems are opposing right now because they can. You may say...no! They can't oppose, but when the President's approval numbers go into the 30s and 40s, that means that they automatically become attack machines. Live with it.
And Gordon...David Drier was the presumed choice-which FOX, AP, everyone was reporting would take over most of the responsibilities. Well, he is taking over some, just not as much as they originally thought. Basically, to you, they are never allowed to be wrong, but that is of no great surprise. Wow...I just defended FOX.
Now, onto Roberts. I am shocked that he got that many no votes. The Dems know that this is not the fight they need to fight and I am astounded that they would be so callous as to assume the American public will continue to be angry with the President. Basically-Roberts was a conservative, but one we can live with (as a mod lib myself)...the fight is now to replace the mod conservative seat that OConnor is leaving. Since Roberts was replacing a conservative witha conservative, then he was bound to face less opposition.
The battle the Dems need to focus on is the next one. The next battle to come is the one to replace O'Connor-and that is where they need to focus their attention. As my government professor put it-"It will be high holy hell for both sides and as a Republican, I think that the Democrats are going to need to fight tooth to nail." He was dead on. If Bush picks an Alberto Gonzales or Janice Rogers Brown, as qualified legally as they may be, the Dems need to put that aside and say-we need to protect the citizens we hold office to protect. That simple.
[ShamMol]No offense, but right now the President is "desperate" as you put it to show that he cares and is doing his job. What is it now-7 trips to the gulf region in a week? /QUOTE]
When it comes to pleasing you Bush haters there is really very little this president can do short of committing suicide to please you.......After Katrina you complained the president did very little to take on hands action, now after Rita he is there 7 times directing the operation and you criticize him for that..............It is a no win situation with you on the far left and the president knows that.........
Navy Pride said:When it comes to pleasing you Bush haters there is really very little this president can do short of committing suicide to please you.......After Katrina you complained the president did very little to take on hands action, now after Rita he is there 7 times directing the operation and you criticize him for that..............It is a no win situation with you on the far left and the president knows that.........
Caine said:And This goes the same in reverse.....The Far Right nutjobs are always going to be opposed to any of the ideals and ideas of the Far Left.... Thats why they are FAR. Hell, when it comes to that, Far Rights disagree with Middle-Rights and Far Lefts disagree with Middle-Left on certain issues.
Navy Pride said:Well you see in this country right now we have a Conservative president and congress so what that has to tell you is that the American voter rejects the principles of the far left and accepts the principles of moderates and conservatives........
If you don't like that try to get far left nut jobs elected.........Good luck.......Its not going to happen.......
Caine said:Well, Personally Im not a fan of the Far left idiots... Im actually slightly left, so I wouldn't want some crazy far left democrat making my political party look bad.
Conservatives obviously don't care, i mean.. look at Bush
Caine said:Legacy? And what is your opinion of that "Legacy".
Personally I think Bush is a retard, but everyone is allowed thier personal opinion.
As for Roberts. Even though I am a Democrat and slightly Liberal, you extreme conservative people who like to generalize we who are not like you will probably think that I disagree with Roberts. I watched most of the coverage of the hearings and all that for him, and I found him to be an acceptable Justice. He dosen't seem like he is going to be an activist, and all this stuff about what he did in his past, well, those documents were written for a purpose but taken out of context as his personal opinions.
But, as for this Navy Guy, do you ever NOT agree with Bush, most of the posts I have seen on here from you have all been in total agreement with Bush, and please correct me if I am wrong (that wasn't meant to be sarcastic.. really i haven't been around too long so I haven't seen all your posts).
You say you are a Democrat and "slightly liberal"? Then you label the president as "a retard" in the face of all liberals and conservatives here and still want to say you are only "slightly liberal"? Even though you would hide behind "personal opinion" you are as partisan as a liberal can get and, not "slightly" as your rhetoric shows. Words mean something you know?
gordontravels said:You say you are a Democrat and "slightly liberal"? Then you label the president as "a retard" in the face of all liberals and conservatives here and still want to say you are only "slightly liberal"? Even though you would hide behind "personal opinion" you are as partisan as a liberal can get and, not "slightly" as your rhetoric shows. Words mean something you know?
galenrox said:I think 78-22 was a fair vote. He's a brilliant man, and I think it's clear that he's got a great respect for the law, but I think there should be votes against him based solely on his desire to not answer questions. We can't accept that.
And before you cons start crapping your pants and calling your mommies, I think the same should apply to whoever being appointed to whatever. If you're asked a question, frickin answer it. If you're asked to provide documents relevent to your previous experience in this or a similar field, frickin provide it.
Think about it. I applied for an internship. I needed to provide my resume, my transcript, a urine test, my criminal background, FBI checks, and answer everything I'm asked, everything.
And God knows if they asked me for anything else, I would've provided it.
Now here's a man essentially applying for one of the most important jobs in this country, a job he will have for the rest of his life, and he's not answering questions.
Navy Pride, that'd be like when you were applying for your current job, and they said "What's your opinion on how to work the deep fryer" and you said "I can't answer that, based on the fact that I may in fact need to use the deep fryer at some point in the future."
galenrox said:I think 78-22 was a fair vote. He's a brilliant man, and I think it's clear that he's got a great respect for the law, but I think there should be votes against him based solely on his desire to not answer questions. We can't accept that.
And before you cons start crapping your pants and calling your mommies, I think the same should apply to whoever being appointed to whatever. If you're asked a question, frickin answer it. If you're asked to provide documents relevent to your previous experience in this or a similar field, frickin provide it.
Think about it. I applied for an internship. I needed to provide my resume, my transcript, a urine test, my criminal background, FBI checks, and answer everything I'm asked, everything.
And God knows if they asked me for anything else, I would've provided it.
Now here's a man essentially applying for one of the most important jobs in this country, a job he will have for the rest of his life, and he's not answering questions.
Navy Pride, that'd be like when you were applying for your current job, and they said "What's your opinion on how to work the deep fryer" and you said "I can't answer that, based on the fact that I may in fact need to use the deep fryer at some point in the future."
Navy Pride said:I just wonder when Ginsberg was up for confirmation that Biden and other dems told her she did not have to answer any questions where she might to to rule on a further case in front of the court.........
Oh wait, that was a democrat president and a liberal justice.........My bad.........:roll:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?