 |
| |
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
The one reason why the Senate is more willing to compromise and reach common ground is because of the filibuster. Without the filibuster the senate becomes just another House where the majorty tramples everyone else and the public lose all checks on extremism. If you want that now then then we don't want any complaining when Democrats pack everything in their favor four years from now. |
Oerdin, the filibuster stayed in existence for 200 years to primarily to keep slavery in the US in one form or another, including denying civil rights to blacks.
But, as Oerdin is from the party of slavery, I understand why he wants to keep the filibuster. He is beginning to sound like some of our Confederate Patriots here -- the Civil War to them is not that at all, but it was the War of Northern Aggression. And to them, the war was not about slavery, but about states rights.
Well Oerdin, slave party member, continues to defend the filibuster. Why are we surprised.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Admiral
|
 |
of the peace and coexistance movement
Feb 2001
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
You may think I'm joking until you see who they filibuster and how they do it. Thomas was a black man who was appointed to the high court. The Dems really went after this guy on a very personal level. His reputation has never recovered. One of the most outstanding candidates the Dems have been blocking is a black woman. She is being villified beyond all the other nominees. Finally I refer to Condi Rice. She was opposed by the Dems in such an openly racist manner as to be almost beyond the pale.
Only, no one calls them on their flagrant racism. At least not the liberal media. |
I'm telling myself that I shouldn't, but I will reply against my better judgement.
First, your argument basically is that the Democrats must be filibustering for a reason, and that they have been opposed to certain blacks, and that therefore, the filibuster is racist. Democrats are opposed to arch-conservatives, and thomas and owen are archconservatives. You cannot deny this. Most on the right do not deny this. As to the anita hill affair, my understanding is that the real personal attacks were directed against her, and her concerns were never granted the consideration that they deserved. His reputation, as I understand it, is that of an archconservative, which he is, so i really don't know what you're talking about regarding his reputation never "recovering." The opposition to Rice, architect of the Bush foreign policy, is based upon the fact that she deliberately contributed to lying to the American people. It has recently come to light that Bush was definitely planning to go to war before the UN resolutions, so there really isn't that much room for doubt her. Why attribute to racism what is better attributed to common-sense anger and resentment?
But I will go further. Ned, and a couple of far right wing blogs have been trying to characterize the Democratic party as racist. They do this either from a complete lack of understanding of politics, an inability to look at events that have happened since 1964, or a deliberate and gleeful attempt to attack the Democrats for faults that are actually their own.
Tell me, why do black people vote overwhelmingly for Democrats? Is it because the Democrats are racist, and all black people are masochistic? Why is it that Republicans, before elections, try to get innocent black people added to felon lists in state where felons can't vote? It can't be because they know that these people will vote Democratic, and they can be safely eliminated from the voting pool. It must be that 80% of blacks are so stupid that they don't know that they're voting for a party that hates them.
I can't say I'm really surprised at you, Ned. But I do long for the day when you question your assumptions, and see beyond your fictionalized universe.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DRoseDARs
|
 |
"My god, it's full of peas..."
Jul 2002
time: 21:21
|
|
Unreal. 
Jesus tap-dancing Christ Senate Dems, you had the GOP by the f*cking balls. The population was overwhelmingly against the so-called "nuclear option" and supported the existence of the filibuster... yet you let these freak jobs through and pat yourselves on the back for it?
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...ilibuster_fight
quote:
Senators Avert Showdown Over Filibusters
By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent 1 hour, 4 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - In a dramatic reach across party lines, Senate centrists sealed a compromise Monday night that cleared the way for confirmation of many of
President Bush's stalled judicial nominees, left others in limbo and preserved venerable filibuster rules.
"We have reached an agreement to try to avert a crisis in the United States Senate and pull the institution back from a precipice," said Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., adding the deal was based on "trust, respect and mutual desire to .... protect the rights of the minority.
"We have lifted ourselves above politics," agreed Sen. Robert C. Byrd (news, bio, voting record), D-W. Va., "And we have signed this document....in the interest of freedom of speech, freedom of debate and freedom to dissent in the United States Senate.
Under the terms, Democrats agreed to allow final confirmation votes for Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor, appeals court nominees they have long blocked. There is "no commitment to vote for or against" the filibuster against two other conservatives named to the appeals court, Henry Saad and William Myers.
The agreement said future judicial nominees should "only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances," with each senator — presumably the Democrats — holding the discretion to decide when those conditions had been met. Officials said the pact was intended to cover the Supreme Court as well as other levels of the judicary.
"In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement," Republicans joined Democrats in pledging to oppose any attempt to make changes in the application of filibuster rules — a commitment that Sen. Mike DeWine (news, bio, voting record), R-Ohio, said at the news conference was conditional on Democrats upholding their end of the deal.
While the agreement was signed by only 14 senators, they held the balance of power in a sharply divided Senate — able to thwart continued Democratic filibusters, on the one hand, and block GOP attempts to alter filibuster practices on the other.
Republicans, moving quickly, said they would seek to confirm Owen as early as Tuesday, with other cleared nominees to follow quickly.
Even so, Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., noted he had not been a party to the deal, which fell short of his stated goal of winning yes-or-no votes on each of Bush's nominees. "It has some good news and it has some disappointing news and it will require careful monitoring," he said.
Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada seemed more receptive — although he hastened to say he remains opposed to some of the nominees who will now likely take seats on federal appeals courts.
"Checks and balances have been protected. The integrity of the Supreme Court has been protected from the undue influence of the vocal, radical right wing," Reid said.
The White House said the agreement was a positive development.
"Many of these nominees have waited for quite some time to have an up-or-down vote and now they are going to get one. That's progress," presidential press secretary Scott McClellan said. "We will continue working to push for up or down votes for all the nominees."
At the same time, even Republicans said the agreement would force a change on the White House.
"Judges are going to get a vote that wouldn't have gotten a vote otherwise. We're going to start talking about who would be a good judge and who wouldn't. And the White House is going to get more involved and they are going to listen to us more," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record), R-S.C., one of the bargainers.
The deal was sealed around the table in McCain's office, across the street from the Capitol where senators had expected an all-night session of speech-making, prelude to Tuesday's anticipated showdown.
Nominally, the issue at hand on the Senate floor was Bush's selection of Owen to a seat on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.
In fact, as the rhetoric suggested, the stakes were far broader, with Republicans maneuvering to strip Democrats of their right to filibuster and thus block current and future nominees to the appeals court and Supreme Court.
There currently is no vacancy on the high court, although one or more is widely expected in Bush's term. Chief Justice
William Rehnquist's coincidental presence in the Capitol during the day was a reminder of that. At age 80 and battling thyroid cancer, he entered the building in a wheelchair on his way to the doctor's office.
The agreement came as Frist and Reid steered the Senate toward a showdown on Bush's nominees and historic filibuster rules, under which a minority can prevent action unless the majority gains 60 votes.
For decades, Senate rules have permitted opponents to block votes on judicial nominees by mounting a filibuster, a parliamentary device that can be stopped only by a 60-vote majority.
But Republicans, frustrated by Democratic filibusters that thwarted 10 of Bush's first-term appeals court nominees and prepared to block seven of them again, threatened to supersede that rule by simple majority vote.
In classic Senate style, the agreement was followed by a rush of self-congratulatory speeches — and disagreement over what it meant.
Democrats, pointing to a slight change in wording from an earlier draft, said the deal would preclude Republicans from attempting to deny them the right to filibuster. Republicans said that was not ironclad, but valid only as long as Democrats did not go back on their word to filibuster only in extraordinary circumstances.
One official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the issue had been discussed at the meeting in McCain's office, and was "clearly understood" by those in attendance.
Apart from the judicial nominees named in the agreement, Reid said Democrats would clear the way for votes on David McKeague, Richard Griffin and Susan Neilson, all named to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Democratic officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, suggested that two other appeals court nominees whose named were omitted from the written agreement — White House staff secretary Brett Kavanaugh and
Pentagon lawyer William Haynes — might be jettisoned. Republicans said they knew of no such understanding.
Some Democrats dissented.
Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., issued a statement saying that "Confirming unacceptable judicial nominations is simply a green light for the Bush administration to send more nominees who lack the judicial temperament or record to serve in these lifetime positions."
Sen. Byron Dorgan (news, bio, voting record), D-N.D., called the agreement "legislative castor oil. It averts the showdown vote tomorrow, but I doubt it's over," he said. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Admiral
I'm telling myself that I shouldn't, but I will reply against my better judgement.
First, your argument basically is that the Democrats must be filibustering for a reason, and that they have been opposed to certain blacks, and that therefore, the filibuster is racist. Democrats are opposed to arch-conservatives, and thomas and owen are archconservatives. You cannot deny this. Most on the right do not deny this. As to the anita hill affair, my understanding is that the real personal attacks were directed against her, and her concerns were never granted the consideration that they deserved. His reputation, as I understand it, is that of an archconservative, which he is, so i really don't know what you're talking about regarding his reputation never "recovering." The opposition to Rice, architect of the Bush foreign policy, is based upon the fact that she deliberately contributed to lying to the American people. It has recently come to light that Bush was definitely planning to go to war before the UN resolutions, so there really isn't that much room for doubt her. Why attribute to racism what is better attributed to common-sense anger and resentment?
But I will go further. Ned, and a couple of far right wing blogs have been trying to characterize the Democratic party as racist. They do this either from a complete lack of understanding of politics, an inability to look at events that have happened since 1964, or a deliberate and gleeful attempt to attack the Democrats for faults that are actually their own.
Tell me, why do black people vote overwhelmingly for Democrats? Is it because the Democrats are racist, and all black people are masochistic? Why is it that Republicans, before elections, try to get innocent black people added to felon lists in state where felons can't vote? It can't be because they know that these people will vote Democratic, and they can be safely eliminated from the voting pool. It must be that 80% of blacks are so stupid that they don't know that they're voting for a party that hates them.
I can't say I'm really surprised at you, Ned. But I do long for the day when you question your assumptions, and see beyond your fictionalized universe. |
Admiral, assuming for the moment that Thomas was filisbustered because he was an archconservative, why did the Dems attack him on a very personal level and never on the basis of his judicial views? The attacks, had they been made by Republicans, would have been labelled racist by all the liberal media, as they were. But they were made by Dems.
Now, the opposition to Rice by some was based on the Bush foreign policy. But the way she was attacked, showing her in cartoons with exaggerated lips, etc., and being a stupid house n*gg*er,, etc., etc., was beyond the pale. Again, had these attacks and slurs been made by Republicans, they would have been labelled as racist, as they were. But they were made by Dems.
Now, you ask about Black and why they support the party of slavery instead of the party of anti-slavery, simple: The Dems lie, lie, lie and lie some more. They are constantly demonizing the Republicans for being elitist and racist. The pity is that Republicans never seem to effectively respond to this. But it is also true that the liberal media portrays the Republicans in this manner as well.
For example, Nixon invented affirmative action to combat racism and the effect that welfare had in walling the blacks off in their ghettos like we once walled off the Indians. But do the press or historians give Nixon any credit whatsoever for advancing the cause of blacks? No. What we hear about is that Nixon inaugurated the so-called Southern Strategy that eventually removed the Southern States from the Democrat camp.
Today Republicans favor vouchers. One benefit of vouchers for blacks is that they too can now attend private schools in the cities. But rather than see the benefits to them of breaking down the barrier of separate white private education, the Dems villify the voucher effort as a means of destroying public schools.
And the beat goes on.
On every issue, it seems, the better position for blacks is with the Republican Party. But they are villified as racists by the party that has no problem in smearing the likes of Thomas, Rice and other Republican blacks on personal grounds that have everything to do with their race.
No, the Dems were the party of racism from its very beginnings. It remains such today.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oerdin
|
 |
of Internet Music.
Sep 2001
time: 21:21
|
|
Ned, Thomas caused such a controversy because creditable witnesses came forward saying Thomas sexually harrassed her. For coming forward and telling the truth about Thomas Anita Hill got attacked, called a whore, and had fanatical extremists throw mud at her.
BTW 80%+ of the black population and around 60%+ of the latino population disagree with you about which party is racist.
Edit: Name changed
Last edited by Oerdin on 24-05-2005 at 22:25
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-05-2005 00:08
|