GWB Approval Rating 4/24/06
POSTED BY: STDOUBT
UPDATED: Monday, April 7, 2025 04:26
VIEWED: 6755
PAGE 1 of 1
Approve
32%
Disapprove
60%
Clueless
8%
Source: CNN
ref URL: http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
P.S. Why doesn't someone move that AIDS /Racial
thread to troll coutry FFS?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Still gald he's President. Can't imagine the horror of Kerry or Gore in the W.H.
Also glad the only polls that count are the ones on Election day.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:These are the only Americans that MATTER! The only ones with the VISION!
Originally posted by STDOUBT:
Approve
32%
The kind that helped us choose VHS over BETA!!!!!!
Chrisisall!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:These are the only Americans that MATTER! The only ones with the VISION!
Originally posted by STDOUBT:
Approve
32%
The kind that helped us choose VHS over BETA!!!!!!
Chrisisall!
Too bad. Bush isn't running again. And I suspect many of those who 'disapprove' are ALSO conservatives who are less than thrilled w/ W's weak stance on Illegal immigration, excessive Federal spending, and of course, the price of gasoline, which has absolutely nothing to do w/ his policy, but it's what everyone has to deal with , regardless. And before anyone whines about the war in Iraq, there's a host of other forces which impact the oil market - increased economies in China, India, Hurricane damage to oil platforms / refineries in the Gulf of Mexio, social unrest in Nigeria, and the whacko Iranian President making new threats every other day about nuclear holocaust and vaporizing Israel.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I knew it.
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Too bad. Bush isn't running again.
You were one of the first to buy VHS.
ChrisisallNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
With a great deal of consistency, I hear from the Bush apologists, who even themselves can't prop him up on his own merits or accomplishments, "at least he isn't Kerry or Gore, because they would just be fucking horrible."
For starters, what isn't fucking horrible about this President's track record?
Secondly, could somebody please elaborate on what exactly Kerry or Gore would have done that would have been so terrible?
Would they have scorned our nation's laws as much as this Presidency has? Would they have ignored and even endangered our national security at the level that this presidency and this buttkissing Congress has? I can go on and on and give specific after specific, but rather than to do that, I'll leave my argument open to attack, so that somebody might actually respond to it, rather than flitting away to post the same old, consistently refuted, propaganda on another thread.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
With a great deal of consistency, I hear from the Bush apologists, who even themselves can't prop him up on his own merits or accomplishments, "at least he isn't Kerry or Gore, because they would just be fucking horrible."
For starters, what isn't fucking horrible about this President's track record?
Secondly, could somebody please elaborate on what exactly Kerry or Gore would have done that would have been so terrible?
Would they have scorned our nation's laws as much as this Presidency has? Would they have ignored and even endangered our national security at the level that this presidency and this buttkissing Congress has? I can go on and on and give specific after specific, but rather than to do that, I'll leave my argument open to attack, so that somebody might actually respond to it, rather than flitting away to post the same old, consistently refuted, propaganda on another thread.
No, they wouldn't have. We would still be involved with Iraq, but I feel like a number of other things wouldn't have happened/would have actually been dealt with when they did occur.
Though honestly, I was more about Edwards than Kerry in that duo.
What this country really needs is a strong 3rd/4th party to really shake things up.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall: The kind that helped us choose VHS over BETA!!!!!!
I've only ever known VHS!! I didn't even get a chance to choose!!!
THOSE BASTARDS!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I imagine that they might have kissed the a** of the status quo, and found nicer, more intelligent ways to state why we must be in Iraq.
Originally posted by Righteous9:
Secondly, could somebody please elaborate on what exactly Kerry or Gore would have done that would have been so terrible?
On the other hand, I don't see them letting Katrina go down the same way...
Trying to be fair Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Beta was superior, but (like Nader) had poor backing, and lost.
Originally posted by Sassalicious:
I've only ever known VHS!! I didn't even get a chance to choose!!!
THOSE BASTARDS!
I feel for you.
Alpha Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
With a great deal of consistency, I hear from the Bush apologists, who even themselves can't prop him up on his own merits or accomplishments, "at least he isn't Kerry or Gore, because they would just be fucking horrible."
For starters, what isn't fucking horrible about this President's track record?
Secondly, could somebody please elaborate on what exactly Kerry or Gore would have done that would have been so terrible?
Would they have scorned our nation's laws as much as this Presidency has? Would they have ignored and even endangered our national security at the level that this presidency and this buttkissing Congress has? I can go on and on and give specific after specific, but rather than to do that, I'll leave my argument open to attack, so that somebody might actually respond to it, rather than flitting away to post the same old, consistently refuted, propaganda on another thread.
For starters, Bush's tax cuts were great for the country, and I hope they stay fixed.
His response to terrorism was a needed change from the 'treat it like a criminal case ' stance from the previous administration
He had 2 damn good additions to the US Supreme Court ( even w/ the screw up w/ Harriet Myers )
Secondly, Gore and Kerry are flat out nuts. Gore and his Global warming nonsense and Kerry w/ his America sucks position. That pretty much is enough.
And one last thing, only about 1/3 of the people living in America were keen on the idea to break the bonds from England, back before the American Revolutionary War.
Sometimes it's necessary to go with what's best, and not always what's popular
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
For starters, Bush's tax cuts were great for the country, and I hope they stay fixed
Yes, because reducing revenue and increasing expenditure (the great "War on Terrorism") is always a good thing. Last time I checked, debt and an increasing one at that, is a bad thing. I'm not allowed to spend money I don't have, why is he allowed to?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
the price of gasoline, which has absolutely nothing to do w/ his policy, but it's what everyone has to deal with , regardless. And before anyone whines about the war in Iraq, there's a host of other forces which impact the oil market - increased economies in China, India, Hurricane damage to oil platforms / refineries in the Gulf of Mexio, social unrest in Nigeria, and the whacko Iranian President making new threats every other day
ah, can we talk here....say Auraptor...have I got a deal for you...it's this bridge, see...hell of a bargain....
oh, and just so you'll know....the word gullible is not even in the dictionary....
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thanks for your response Auraptor,
I'll start at the tax cuts that gave American families about an average of 300 extra dollars in their pockets, if I remember the figure correctly, while giving the rich, huge breaks like bush's own tax credit that was about 92,000 dollars. And no, our overall economy is not looking good. It is not saying much for our country that we have the highest poverty rate among industrialized nations, while those who are in the top 1 percentile keep widening the gap. And Jesus, don't tell me that the rich getting tax cuts somehow trickles down to us. It doesn't. That should be obvious by now.
Just look at our oil companies and their windfall profits, yet our gas is getting more expensive, small business's and the middle class are getting squeezed viciously from this price gouging. Why is it that, so often when a company posts awesome numbers do we almost invariably see them simultaneously outsourcing their workers? There is no company loyalty to America or its citizens, and our government, being a corporately propped up one, is no different.
.....
Ah yes, his response to terrorism. He couldn't get Bin Laden when we knew he was in Tora Bora..., and since then said he doesn't spend much time on him. He went to look for America-threatening terrorists where they didn't exist, and even kept trumping up the facts to back up his accusation. He tried to allow a deal to go through with the United Arab Emirates to buy OUR PORTS, people who actually had a relationship with Al Quiada.
He has helped to fuel this idea in the minds of Muslims that we are attacking their faith...he has helped to sanction torture of our prisoners, which EVEN IF you say it wasn't that bad, or that they didn't deserve to be treated better(so many have been freed because there was nothing to try them for, by the way), this has enraged parts of the Muslim world and has fed extremism and anti-Americanism.
Your Right, the Bush administration didn't treat terrorism like a criminal case, they used it as a reason to invoke the 'last refuge of the scoundrel,' they used it as a reason to attack without being attacked, a sovereign secular nation that is now fundamentalist thanks to our meddling.
And they failed to prevent 911 and even made ridiculous comments like "nobody could have expected that they would use planes," when the report handed to them( called 'an historic document', by condi) which was labeled 'Bin Laden Determined to attack U.S.' said?....that's right, that they might try to use planes.
....
I'll mostly leave the supreme court nominees alone at the moment. I think they were horrible as well as another slap in the face to the half of the country that didn't vote for Bush, because he did not pick moderates by any stretch. But I have no specifics that I can remember about their past cases, connections, etc. off the top of my head, besides that one Roberts was presiding over involving the White House while at the same time interviewing for supreme court justice with Gonzales...talk about shady, sleazy, unethical...etc.
.......
Jesus, even the Bush administration has finally acknowledged global warming. Is it nuts when the scientific community by-and-large is on the same page with this? Here's what's nuts. The head of the EPA(appointed by Bush) was caught brazenly editing reports suggesting that global warming was a serious problem. He changed words, cut passages, etc. and then when he was found out, he resigned and took a job with Exxon Mobile.
Or how about this... something like 40 million dollars was spent on funding research projects, by the oil companies, which lo and behold, came up with the conclusion that there was no conclusive data for global warming, just so the bastards could say to us that there was no consensus. If I've got to lean to one side of this debate i'm going to lean to the research that wasn't bought and paid for.
........
I do agree with you on minority opinion versus majority opinion to a point though. That point comes down to how
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Dayve:
gullible
Do the French have a word for it.
They don't have one for Entrepreneur.
Apparently...
And as for majority opinion! Democracy, what a crock of shit, since few men are wise rule by the majority is necessarilly the rule of fools!
I'm smart, I should run the world. I'll be a good dictator, promise.
Besides why are we giving democracy to Iraq? Bush should just choose an American friendly government and fuck the Iraqis. It's worked before, like when the powers that be put pinochett in charge because those stupid idiots chose the wrong government in election, nothing went wrong there.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
He had 2 damn good additions to the US Supreme Court ( even w/ the screw up w/ Harriet Myers )
And those would be? All I saw was Bush putting a couple loyal Republicans in what is arguably the most important position in the country. If that's not a major fuckin' mistake, then I don't know what is.
As for Meyers, she was exactly the kind of supreme court justice that we need. A moderate that sees both sides and can compromise to satisfy the people, not her party.
You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Sassalicious:Quote:
For starters, Bush's tax cuts were great for the country, and I hope they stay fixed
Yes, because reducing revenue and increasing expenditure (the great "War on Terrorism") is always a good thing. Last time I checked, debt and an increasing one at that, is a bad thing. I'm not allowed to spend money I don't have, why is he allowed to?
Tax cuts INCREASED revenue to the Federal Treasurey, not decreased. In fact, it's happened every time taxes have been cut. Worked that way w/ JFK, with Reagan and with Bush 43. The Debt isn't a result of the War on Terror, but from excessive social spending, entitlements, and the like. W spends $ like a drunken sailor, and there's no denying that. He's tried to 'play nice ' w/ the Democrats, and it's blown up in his face.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Dayve:Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
the price of gasoline, which has absolutely nothing to do w/ his policy, but it's what everyone has to deal with , regardless. And before anyone whines about the war in Iraq, there's a host of other forces which impact the oil market - increased economies in China, India, Hurricane damage to oil platforms / refineries in the Gulf of Mexio, social unrest in Nigeria, and the whacko Iranian President making new threats every other day
ah, can we talk here....say Auraptor...have I got a deal for you...it's this bridge, see...hell of a bargain....
oh, and just so you'll know....the word gullible is not even in the dictionary....
I see dealing w/ facts is not your concern. Inane one liners is.
Here's a grand idea. Why not try to dispute comment point by point, instead of quips about bridges and petty insults. Perhaps both of us can learn something if you try to have an honest discussion.
It is a dream I have
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rightious9
I find it near impossible to have a intellectually honest discussion on much if you try to cliam the economy isn't doing very well. But what the heck, lets have some fun. 
The 'rich' EARNED that money, and are being 'allowed' to keep it. It's not GIVING them anything. Your choice of words and phrasing is baffling. Trickle down DOES work, and for anyone to deny that....well, you're welcome to think that.
Oil companies have the smallest profit MARGIN numbers of almost any major corporation. EXXON was at 9% profit in 2005, I believe. Where was the outcry in the Dot Com companies paying their employees outrageous salaries, and they were dealing w/ virtually NOTHING!
.....
Yeah, we've not gotten OBL , yet. Seen him lately? Funny how all we get from him are 'audio' tapes, when before he was constantly on video. Wonder why THAT is. We suspected he was in Tora Bora, we didn't KNOW for dead certain. There's always been a margin of error in trying to track down folks like that.
OBL declared war on the West and the US way back in '97. We were attacked IN NYC by pissed off muslims in 1993, in Clinton's first months of office. Subsequently in the next 8 yrs, the US was attacked no less than 4 more times, all Islamic terrorist. Bush bears the blame for 9/11, yet Clinton gets a pass for all those ? And it IS correct, no one could have expected the use of airliners as weapons. It's one thing to theorize about such events, quite another to see them happne for the first time.
.....
You know little, it seems , about either Alito OR Roberts, other than they're conservative, and therefore must be bad. *sigh* Bush is President and gets to pick whom ever he wishes. Clinton did the same w/ Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and she is FAR more Left wing than Bush's choices are to the Right. And the GOP put up littel fuss over her nomination, as the vote was 96-3 ( 1 no vote ) Bush slapped no one in the face, except maybe conservatives when he tried to slip Harriet Miers onto the bench. Send your friends a card and some flowers to show how much you care, George. Don't treat them to a seat on the USSC.
......
Even BUSH agrees on Global Warming ? ( Where's the laugh emoticon? ) This from a White House that won't committ Fed $$ for embryonic stem cell research...well, not that any of that really matters. Private research is still raking in the $$, all it wants. So there's no real issue there. To keep this brief... the Earth's climate has never, and will never be 'stable' .
............
On being 'informed', there's so much more that can be said. A great deal of what we're being fed by the Gov't and the media is mind numbing B.S. It's the opiat of the masses, in all the colors of the rainbow. My view is that the Gov't should be doing far LESS than it's doing in many areas it has no business , and far MORE in the primary functions of what Gov'ts are suppose to do.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:{raises hand timidly}.... Because you're not allowed to print money in your basement, like the Feds? Good thing I put a chunk'o change into a basket of currencies. Not like I'm betting against the dollar or anything....
I'm not allowed to spend money I don't have, why is he allowed to?
---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rap-
Quote:How does someone "earn" $50 billion? Certainly not by working!
The 'rich' EARNED that money.
---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Unwrapped,
Quote:
Tax cuts INCREASED revenue to the Federal Treasurey, not decreased.
Not according to the GAO.
Quote:Then how do you explain that Clinton brought a SURPLUS to government accounts, even with a full load of social spending, while bushbaby brought a DEFICIT while cutting social spending?
The Debt isn't a result of the War on Terror, but from excessive social spending, entitlements, and the like.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Unwrapped,
Quote:What work did they do?
The 'rich' EARNED that money,
Quote:It was bush 41 that called it vodoo economics.
Trickle down DOES work
Quote:Due to loopholes in the tax code that allow them to write off pretty much all their profit.
Oil companies have the smallest profit MARGIN numbers of almost any major corporation.
Quote:Too bad, too. The US COULD have had him if it simply agreed to turn him over to the ICC rather than the US. And whose fault was that?
Yeah, we've not gotten OBL , yet.
Quote:When you own friggin' security apparatus tells you it's a problem and you ignore it - whose fault is that?
And it IS correct, no one could have expected the use of airliners as weapons.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
'Cause it's voodoo economics, Rue. heh heh heh
---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
OK, Rap, point by point.
Quote:What part of the economy is doing well? Profits? Wages? Spending? Exports? Imports? Agriculture? Savings? Industrial capacity? Value of the dollar? Federal deficit? Please be specific and provide supporting data.
I find it near impossible to have a intellectually honest discussion on much if you try to cliam the economy isn't doing very well.
---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Unwrapped,
So I read your post again. I tried to figure out how someone could be so deluded. So to borrow an approach from SignyM (and reiterate some of his points):
Quote:Be specific. Which part of the economy is doing well. Provide links.
I find it near impossible to have a intellectually honest discussion on much if you try to cliam the economy isn't doing very well.
Quote:What does 'it works' mean? Median wages go up? More people work? The government runs a surplus? Production increases? Please be specific and provide links.
Trickle down DOES work.
Quote:Please provide links or references to two major oil company's profit margins. Please be specific about what you mean by 'major corporation'. Do you mean automobile, steel, textiles, chips, fast food, chain stores? Provide profit figures for two of them, with links.
Oil companies have the smallest profit MARGIN numbers of almost any major corporation.
Quote:It's been 4.5 years since the US attacked Afghanistan to get ObL 'DEAD OR ALIVE'. How do you account for the lack of progress finding ObL over so many years?
Yeah, we've not gotten OBL , yet
Quote:WHich one was cited by the ABA for conflict of interest in cases in which he presided? Which one was most often the minority opinion?
You know little, it seems , about either Alito OR Roberts
Quote:'Never' and 'stable' are undefined terms. Please define them.
the Earth's climate has never, and will never be 'stable'.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
flaky connection ...
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Actually, I think the number just came out today conveniently enough, and the top 3 oil companies posted record profits AGAIN for the first quarter, of about a 19 percent gain. And infact they are well above all other corporations in profits. Wait...didn't you just hear about the CEO of Exxon Mobile getting a 400 million dollar pension plan? Are you going to tell me he got that inspite of his company doing sluggishly?
It's an amazingly good thing when employees get paid well, or I would have thought. They are doing the labor that is making the company money and should get a share of the profits, wouldn't you say?
If getting to privately advise the Vice President in classified meetings about how the government should run their energy policy, if having the access to the government that gets a country to go to war for the sake of profiteering is all hard work, then you are correct...all the rich people have earned their money, handily, not by creating better products and more advances for americans, but by keeping such advancements at bay, by making deals with politicians they helped to put into office, at the detriment of the rest of us.
It's just not the case that these people at the top are earning all of this money. They are stealing it. And when the credit card companies get to write the bill that our congress ratifies into law on bankrupcy, they are stealing too. and when Enron trumps up energy shortages that raped a whole state of its money...yeah...theft.
But lets take the good guys who are rich...because not everybody is as unscrupulous as the parties I'm speaking of. Now be honest.
Did they really earn every penny of that money? Did they do it without the help of this America, its people, its industry, its laws, its infrastructure? Can you really tell me that all of those things can survive for future generations if we keep taking the priority off of education, if we ignore our poor and let that problem fester? if we allow untold ammounts of a finite financial resource to percolate to the top out of the hands of the endangered middle class(which is happening if you look at the numbers).
And how about people who have inherited their money? Should we really have a defacto royal class in this society that is rich only by the graces of their long dead relatives? What contribution are they making to America? How are they helping us to be a great country? Why should we keep saying that they EARNED it?
This mass consolidation of money is killing competition, hobbling free enterprise, honestly destroying the principles of capitalism, smothering democracy, turning us into a society of untrained workers, because instead of training people like companies used to, they are outsourcing for their skilled jobs...oh, why do you not want to see any of this?
I'll save the other points for another day.
On edit, while I agree with Sygm and Rue, links would be helpful, it would be unfair of me to ask for them as I havn't been giving you them either,
but maybe it would be fair to ask you to cite some examples when you make claims.
oh and the bush thing about global warming...I think I remember reading it, but you might be right about that one...He usually doesn't make mistakes or change his policies, so that would be uncharacteristic.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There's no sense arguing with Auraptor, he drank the koolaid a long, long time ago.
32% approval rating. Now we know how many of the people you can fool all of the time.
The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Rap-Quote:How does someone "earn" $50 billion? Certainly not by working!
The 'rich' EARNED that money.
---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.
Actually, yes. By working and making smart choices.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hardware,
I guess that's what I'm curious about. What is going on in their brains?
There are a few here who seem like they really can't help their loose attachment to reality. And then there are others who, by their arguments, seem to know what's normal and what isn't. They try so hard to make bushbaby look normal, capable, honest ... to fit him into a socially acceptable framework. So, how do they glide over the discrepancies that they obviously know exist?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
For starters, Bush's tax cuts were great for the country, and I hope they stay fixed.
How are they great for the country? My parents are middle-class and got almost nothing out of the deal (almost). You later mention that trickle-down economics work, how? If I made half a million a year and got a tax cut that gave me another 10,000 I would probably say "that's nice" and dump it in the bank. I already make so much money that I don't need that money to buy the stuff that I want. You claim that revenue increased with the tax cuts, I would like to see proof, I like to think that I am fairly intelligent and I don't see how that works out.
Quote:
His response to terrorism was a needed change from the 'treat it like a criminal case ' stance from the previous administration
Agree, but that doesn't account for Iraq, they had very little to do with terrorism and nothing to do with 9\11. Why not attack Saudi Arabia, Syria or some other country that we haven't already blown the s*** out of? Because Bush wanted Iraq, no president is omnipotent, they will be gone in 8 years or less, they do not have carte blanche over the entire U.S. and the military is not their plaything.
Quote:
He had 2 damn good additions to the US Supreme Court ( even w/ the screw up w/ Harriet Myers )
The social liberal in me shudders at the new justices being called damn good. I pesonally feel that the Supreme Court should be ruled by moderates, with the flexibility to change with the times and the rigidity to not shift with every passing fad, not conservatives who think that progressive is just an insurance company, and whose minds are too often ruled by religious doctrines that a healthy portion of Americans do not share. The biggest problem that I have with the new Justices is that Bush shifted the balance from a good one (4 con 4 lib 1 swing) to a not so good one (anything that isn't balanced between con and lib).
Quote:
Gore and Kerry are flat out nuts
Not going to disagree with you but Bush and Cheney are short a couple of stabilizers themselves. In reality I believe in what Douglas Adams (i think) said "anyone capable of getting themselves elected President should under no circumstances be allowed to have the job". I think that there are very few people in the government who actually belong in their posts, and my feeling on this crosses party boundaries with ease.
Quote:
Gore and his Global warming nonsense
Can you show me that global warming is not real, does not have consequences, and is not caused by us? This is one of those things that has been studied to death and had both sides get "proof" that they were right. My opinion? Better safe than sorry, push for better pollution controls without going overboard. That being said I would rather go overboard than have a President that lets the mega-corps do what they want.
Quote:
Kerry w/ his America sucks position
Not so sure on this one, I think that Kerry was not a super-patriot but this goes a little overboard.
Quote:
Sometimes it's necessary to go with what's best, and not always what's popular
But then we come to the age-old question of who says what's best? I wholeheartedly agree with you on this point, but unfortunatly I disagree more often than not with what the current administration thinks is best.
Quote:
less than thrilled w/ W's weak stance on Illegal immigration
One of the things that's making me mad right now.
Quote:
excessive Federal spending
I'm 20, I am probably going to reap the rewards of Bush financial mismanagement and tax cuts (that was sarcastic, just making sure you know)
Quote:
he price of gasoline, which has absolutely nothing to do w/ his policy
While OPEC sets the price based on whims, destabilizing the Middle East WILL cause gas prices to go up. This WAS a policy decision that Bush made.
Quote:
Tax cuts INCREASED revenue to the Federal Treasurey, not decreased.
Then why is the deficit so bad? Why
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rightious9
Profits are NOT profit MARGINS. Learn to tell the difference between the 2. And EXXON is doing very well, where'd you get this idea of doing ' sluggish' ?
Oil company employees ARE doing well, from what I hear. Have you heard different? Where ?
Show your proof that anyone went to 'war' for the sake of the oil companies. That's just flat out absurd.
Quote:Whom are they stealing it from? The members of the board, who voted them to their positions ? The stock holders, who are getting returns on their investments ? WHO??? Credit them for first agreeing on the contracts and then doing well for the company, well enough so they get what all parties agreed on.
It's just not the case that these people at the top are earning all of this money. They are stealing it.
Most millionaires earned, and did not inherit their $. True fact.
As for links, do your own research. Seriously, limit your points and I'll try to limit mine, and we'll see what we find.
As for Bush, you missed my point. You're going to give him 'credit' for buying into global warming, yet I'll bet dollars to donuts you don't agree w/ him on embryonic stem cell research, right?
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Unwrapped,
I was hoping you could provide detailed answers to my questions (above).
Thanks.
Rue
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Unwrapped,
I was hoping you could provide detailed answers to my questions (above).
Thanks.
Rue
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
Sorry, I've got a life. Too busy. DO your own research.
Ok, here's a bone to get you started.
Quote:
Consumer cheer hits four-year high in April
Tue Apr 25, 2006 11:51 AM ET
By Amanda Cooper
NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. consumer confidence in the economy reached a four-year high in April as better job prospects temporarily offset unease over rising gasoline prices, according to data released on Tuesday.
In addition, sales of existing homes rose at a pace faster than expected in March, but analysts warned that the upswing could be short-lived, given the rise in borrowing rates.
Other economic data showed consumer spending was stronger in the third week in April than in the same week last year, aided by a late Easter holiday weekend and a spring clothes shopping spree in some parts of the country.
http://today.reuters.com/business/newsarticle.aspx?type=ousiv&storyID=
2006-04-25T155243Z_01_N25397200_RTRIDST_0_BUSINESSPRO-ECONOMY-DC.XML
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You are making the claims, m' dear. It's up to you to back them up. But if you could back up just one it would help.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, AURaptor, how many millions have you made? I assume you are a hard working type, dilligent, resourceful and all that.
We don't need rich daddies to start us off, right? Or 'friends' we owe, or ex-friends we undercut or cheated, or special interest groups giving us kickbacks and such...
Made my first mill doin' the clerk thing when I was just a lad. Parlayed that into my 'Ordinary Joe' Empire. Me and all my friends is richer than Buddha right now!
We can't all be Gates Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Claim backed up and supported. Now, g'nite.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Consumer confidence ('we put the con in confidence!), spending and home sales? Are those your indicators of a strong economy?
LEADING INDICATORS: vendor performance, stock prices, index of consumer expectations, manufacturers' new orders for consumer goods and materials, interest rate spread, building permits, average weekly initial claims for unemployment insurance (inverted), manufacturers' new orders for nondefense capital goods, and real money supply.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=economic_ind
icators&docid=f:00ja05.txt.pdf
Interesting graphs are (p7) total personal income up through 2004 but wage and salary (your work income) flat 2000 - 2002; (p13) unemployment drops steadily 1997 through 2000 then rises significantly above 1997 levels in 2001 and stays there through 2004; well, I gotta go. Family calls. But look through the document. The graphs are 'broken' in 2000 and don't recover.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, are consumer confidence, consumer spending, and home sales the indicators by which you judge "the economy"? Think carefully about this Rap. To repeat the question, so it doesn't get lost in the shuffle:
ARE CONSUMER CONFIDENCE, HOME SALES, AND CONSUMER SPENDING THE INDICATORS BY WHICH YOU JUDGE THE ECONOMY? Yes or no.
Or... when consumer condfidence goes down (which it will next month thanks to high gasoline prices) will you choose another economic indicator? The reason why I'm asking is because I don't want to play a shell game with you, where you pop up with indicators du jour. So stick with "consumer confidence" for the rest of the discussion or pick another indicator that you feel is most appropriate.
Once we have decided whether "the economy" really is doing well we can move on to the rest of your assertions.
Also, please recall that you wanted a point by point discussion. So would I.
---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Me and all my friends is richer than Buddha right now!
We can't all be Gates Chrisisall
AWESOME!
Except not because well, everyone is richer than Buddha in monetary terms . . . .
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, I'm probably richer than Auraptor! 
BTW Auraptor, please see my post above.
---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh Auraptor...
what do you think that 96 3 vote for ginsberg meant? It meant that Clinton picked somebody the Repubs jumped on because they thought she was moderate enough for their tastes in presentation...And if they truly thought that she was going to do harm to their values in that seat and still picked her, if that is your contention, then they really screwed their constituents.
It is their job to dissent choices to the supreme court that they think are bad. They have a say in this matter as a check on the presidency. If they aren't using that check when it is warranted, they don't deserve to hold their seats.
Feel free to respond, but I don't expect you to. too many different posts have been heaped on you to respond to them all. Where is Hero when we need him? Where is Finn? Give a brother a hand out here guys.
Oh, I didn't see your post to me until just now. Okay, profits are different than profit margins. You schooled me again. Of course you brought up their profit margin as if it was paltry, and now you've agreed that Exxon Mobile is doing quite well...so which is it?
Yes, it would be absurd for me to say that we went to war just for the oil companies, because that would leave out Haliburton and the Carlile group.
I stand corrected again...thank you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh, also that part about employees getting paid well being a good thing was not in reference to the oil companies it was in reference to your exasperated question about why there was no outrage at dot com employees getting paid well.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
ARE CONSUMER CONFIDENCE, HOME SALES, AND CONSUMER SPENDING THE INDICATORS BY WHICH YOU JUDGE THE ECONOMY? Yes or no.
Jusat keeping this question front and center for 'Rap. For detail, scroll up a couple
---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ahhh, Capitalista's:
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/capitalista.htm
Let's get something straight shall we regarding the Voodoo economics (love that term and it really fits) of 'trickle down'.
Trickle down doesn't happen, I doubt even serious capitalist economists believe it does. Trickle down is something that is there to get the gullible in the lower rungs of society behind the idea and allay any guilt those on the upper rungs may feel.
Money isn't real, it's a symbol, a place holder for natural resources, usually equivalent to gold held in the gold reserves of that nation. Essentially printing more money doesn't give you more wealth; it gives you more symbols that are worth less. Simplistically if you put twice as many dollars into circulation today as there were yesterday a dollar will be worth today what 50 cents was worth yesterday.
Therefore it's reasonable to say the total amount of money you have is fixed. Okay you get inflation but that doesn't effect 'trickle down' so for the sake of simplicity we can discount it.
So you have a fixed amount of wealth. The rich accumulate wealth, i.e. they bank more than they spend. So now we have a fixed size resource (wealth) with a group receiving more of this resource than they pass back into the system.
Question: Eventually what happens to this resource?
Answer: It gets depleted.
So how would this depletion of wealth manifest? Well by the distance between the haves and the have nots increasing.
Anyone want to tell me which country of all Industrialised nations should see the effect of 'Trickle Down' the most, which is also the Industrialised nation with the biggest gap between rich and poor and the largest percentage of population living under the poverty line?
Why is this?
Well obviously it's the evil socialist body snatchers and their evil mind control.
Obviously regulations too. Without regulations all those companies that break regulations that are there would suddenly start playing fair, it's all part of capitalist magic.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:Quote:
Tax cuts INCREASED revenue to the Federal Treasurey, not decreased.
Then why is the deficit so bad? Why is the owner of the national debt clock looking into adding another number to the clock for when (not if) the debt hits 1 Trillion?
Um, have you actually paid attention to the national debt? Last month, it passed 9 TRILLION DOLLARS.
You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by reaverman:Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:Quote:
Tax cuts INCREASED revenue to the Federal Treasurey, not decreased.
Then why is the deficit so bad? Why is the owner of the national debt clock looking into adding another number to the clock for when (not if) the debt hits 1 Trillion?
Um, have you actually paid attention to the national debt? Last month, it passed 9 TRILLION DOLLARS.
You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.
Damnit, meant to put 10, caught my mistake, edited it and it still shows 1. I'll try to edit it again.
EDIT: fixed, finally.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yo! Rap! Where's that point by point discussion we were both looking forward to?????
---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
Oh Auraptor...
what do you think that 96 3 vote for ginsberg meant? It meant that Clinton picked somebody the Repubs jumped on because they thought she was moderate enough for their tastes in presentation...And if they truly thought that she was going to do harm to their values in that seat and still picked her, if that is your contention, then they really screwed their constituents.
It is their job to dissent choices to the supreme court that they think are bad. They have a say in this matter as a check on the presidency. If they aren't using that check when it is warranted, they don't deserve to hold their seats.
Feel free to respond, but I don't expect you to. too many different posts have been heaped on you to respond to them all. Where is Hero when we need him? Where is Finn? Give a brother a hand out here guys.
Oh, I didn't see your post to me until just now. Okay, profits are different than profit margins. You schooled me again. Of course you brought up their profit margin as if it was paltry, and now you've agreed that Exxon Mobile is doing quite well...so which is it?
Yes, it would be absurd for me to say that we went to war just for the oil companies, because that would leave out Haliburton and the Carlile group.
I stand corrected again...thank you.
The GOP didn't in any way think that Ginsberg was 'moderate', but they still honored the idea that the President has the right to choose whom he wants to sit on the bench. In short, the GOP acted like statesmen, and not fanatical, partisan hacks as the Dems have become. The Senate is charged w/ the duty of 'advice and consent 'when the President nominates an executive or judicial post, and that's what the they did. Even though the GOP could have tried to play Quid Pro Quo for the the Bork lynching, they felt the interest of the country was best served to simply take the vote and move on.
The Dems werent' so compelled to do the same.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
The GOP didn't in any way think that Ginsberg was 'moderate', but they still honored the idea that the President has the right to choose whom he wants to sit on the bench. In short, the GOP acted like statesmen, and not fanatical, partisan hacks as the Dems have become. The Senate is charged w/ the duty of 'advice and consent 'when the President nominates an executive or judicial post, and that's what the they did. Even though the GOP could have tried to play Quid Pro Quo for the the Bork lynching, they felt the interest of the country was best served to simply take the vote and move on.
The Dems werent' so compelled to do the same.
Normally I just ghost these threads. However, I had to jump in and call BS on this blatent revisioning of history that AURaptor is engaging in. It may be the official party talking points but it doesn't jive with the record. I'll pull a quote from an article about this topic:
Quote:
excerpted from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/14/AR2005
111401021.html
In fact, then-Judge Ginsburg was a consensus choice, pushed by Republicans and accepted by the president in large part because he didn't want to take on a big fight. Far from being a crazed radical, Ginsburg had staked out a centrist role on a closely divided appeals court. Don't take it from me -- take it from Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah). In his autobiography, the Utah Republican describes how he suggested Ginsburg -- along with Clinton's second pick, Stephen G. Breyer -- to the president. "From my perspective, they were far better than the other likely candidates from a liberal Democratic administration," Hatch writes.
Okay. Back to lurking (Oh, a big hello to Signym and Rue
)Hmmm. And, to kind of get back on topic, here's my interpretation of the poll results:
32% - Thank you sir, may I have another?
60% - No, I don't believe that George Bush is God *
8% - Tu whubba who?
* shamelessly stolen from somewhere I can't remember
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SoupCatcher -
Ruthie is undeniably a Liberal justice.
She is considered to be part of the "liberal wing" in the current court and has a Segal-Cover score of 0.680 placing her as the most liberal (by that measure) of current justices, although more moderate than those of many other post-War justices.
She has consistently supported abortion rights and joined in the Supreme Court's opinion striking down Nebraska's partial-birth abortion law in Stenberg v. Carhart (2000),
She has been an advocate for the use and citation of foreign law and norms in judicial opinions,
She favors legalization of prostitution. ( Not saying that would be a BAD thing, but it's certainly not a conservative position )
She is considered to be part of the "liberal wing" in the current court and has a Segal-Cover score of 0.680 placing her as the most liberal (by that measure) of current justices, although more moderate than those of many other post-War justices.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg .680
Stephen Breyer .475
Anthony Kennedy .365
David Souter .325
John Paul Stevens .250
Clarence Thomas .150
John Roberts .120
Samuel Alito .100
Antonin Scalia .000
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Your own post makes her sound moderate...
The most liberal judge on that court isn't very impressive...and sure she's on the left wing of the court, but its a little stubby wing that doesn't stray as far as you suggest from center. .680 isn't a very radical score if we compare that to the other end of the spectrum of Scalia's 0. So yeah, thanks for the numbers...it puts things into the perspective. She was much more moderate than what Clinton could have picked, and the GOP were happy about that. And much more moderate by your own numbers than say Scalia or Roberts. Hmmm.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey Soup! I wondered if you were still around. Howdee!
Say 'Rap- you said the economy was doign well and I'm still waiting to see why you say that. I'm still looking forward to that point by point...
---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
AURaptor,
You're missing the significance of the quote from Orrin Hatch's autobiography. Hatch suggested Ginsburg to Clinton as a nominee that the Republicans would confirm (and later suggested Breyer). Ginsburg was Hatch's choice. Whether or not she is a liberal justice (and I agree, she is *eta: although, as was pointed out by Righteous9, not as liberal as the right wing likes to portray her) she was pre-selected by the Republican leadership as a nominee they could live with. The same with Breyer.
The revisionism I spoke of, which surfaced around the time of Alito's confirmation, that you used was that the Republicans didn't fight against Ginsburg because they believed in the President's right to nominate whoever he wants. The implication was that the Republicans didn't like her liberal views but swallowed their opinion because this was the President's choice. The reality was that Clinton accepted the suggestion of Orrin Hatch because he would've been in for a dogfight if he nominated someone the Republicans hadn't given the greenlight to. Ginsburg was a Republican selection.
So my objection to your statement wasn't that you said Ginsburg was liberal, it was in your parroting of the rewriting of history, with respect to the Ginsburg nomination, that appeared and was popularized throughout the GOP apparatus at the time of the Alito confirmation.
* edited to add: Hey Signym! Looks like we were posting at around the same time. Yup, I'm still here. Lurking for the most part. But around.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
AURaptor,
You're missing the significance of the quote from Orrin Hatch's autobiography. Hatch suggested Ginsburg to Clinton as a nominee that the Republicans would confirm (and later suggested Breyer). Ginsburg was Hatch's choice. Whether or not she is a liberal justice (and I agree, she is *eta: although, as was pointed out by Righteous9, not as liberal as the right wing likes to portray her) she was pre-selected by the Republican leadership as a nominee they could live with. The same with Breyer.
The revisionism I spoke of, which surfaced around the time of Alito's confirmation, that you used was that the Republicans didn't fight against Ginsburg because they believed in the President's right to nominate whoever he wants. The implication was that the Republicans didn't like her liberal views but swallowed their opinion because this was the President's choice. The reality was that Clinton accepted the suggestion of Orrin Hatch because he would've been in for a dogfight if he nominated someone the Republicans hadn't given the greenlight to. Ginsburg was a Republican selection.
So my objection to your statement wasn't that you said Ginsburg was liberal, it was in your parroting of the rewriting of history, with respect to the Ginsburg nomination, that appeared and was popularized throughout the GOP apparatus at the time of the Alito confirmation.
* edited to add: Hey Signym! Looks like we were posting at around the same time. Yup, I'm still here. Lurking for the most part. But around.
It's called 'politics', Soup. Senators can make any statement on day, then take the opposite position later on and not bat an eye. I was unaware that Orin Hatch spoke for all Republicans. Since that must have been the case, I stand correcttd.
Ginsberg was a Clinton seleciton, through and through.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Soup, some people simply cannot abide facts.
---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The problem with AURaptor is that he has no word for 'Facts'.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
AURaptor,
Hatch was on the Senate Judiciary Committee. He would become chairman of that committee when the Republicans regained control of the Senate a few years later. The only Republican on that committee who had been in the Senate longer than Hatch was Thurmond. I'd say that, in this instance, he pretty much does speak for the Republicans. Here is a longer excerpt from his autobiography:
Quote:
from http://thinkprogress.org/2005/07/01/how-clinton-treated-hatch/
[It] was not a surprise when the President called to talk about the appointment and what he was thinking of doing.
President Clinton indicated he was leaning toward nominating Bruce Babbitt, his Secretary of the Interior, a name that had been bouncing around in the press. Bruce, a well-known western Democrat, had been the governor of Arizona and a candidate for president in 1988. Although he had been a state attorney general back during the 1970s, he was known far more for his activities as a politician than as a jurist. Clinton asked for my reaction.
I told him that confirmation would not be easy. At least one Democrat would probably vote against Bruce, and there would be a great deal of resistance from the Republican side. I explained to the President that although he might prevail in the end, he should consider whether he wanted a tough, political battle over his first appointment to the Court.
Our conversation moved to other potential candidates. I asked whether he had considered Judge Stephen Breyer of the First Circuit Court of Appeals or Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. President Clinton indicated he had heard Breyer’s name but had not thought about Judge Ginsberg.
I indicated I thought they would be confirmed easily. I knew them both and believed that, while liberal, they were highly honest and capable jurists and their confirmation would not embarrass the President. From my perspective, they were far better than the other likely candidates from a liberal Democrat administration.
In the end, the President did not select Secretary Babbitt. Instead, he nominated Judge Ginsburg and Judge Breyer a year later, when Harry Blackmun retired from the Court. Both were confirmed with relative ease.
There is a tendency to always try and make the other party look bad. Oftentimes, there is evidence to support that position. This isn't one of those times. In an effort to claim the moral high ground during the Alito confirmation the GOP machine manufactured a myth about Ginsburg's nomination. Evidence does not support that myth. This didn't stop many pundits from parroting the myth and many loyal Republicans from following suit. Spit the hook. At least in this one case. You can always swallow the next narrative.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
... I was unaware that Orin Hatch spoke for all Republicans. Since that must have been the case, I stand correcttd.
Ginsberg was a Clinton seleciton, through and through.
So, an experienced Republican Senator, who was actually involved with the issue at hand, doesn't have the story straight, but you do.
Okay. I think I've got it now. Orin Hatch doesn't speak for all Republicans. AURaptor does.
Wow.
Just...wow.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Soupcatcher:
You make an interesting point about the Ginsberg nomination, but I think your arguement may be a little deceptive. Not that I want to defend Aruptor, but I believe the premise of your arguement is that because Sen. Hatch mentioned Judge Ginsberg as on of the nominees that he and his fellow Republicans saw as
Quote:that she is somehow transformed into the Republican Selected Nominee? That seems a bit of a stretch since they had no power to actually make the selection in the first place. This is easily verified by that fact that the Republicans first choice wasn't even under consideration by the Clinton administration. The selection was purely Clinton's.
..far better than the other likely candidates from a liberal Democrat administration.
You also asserted that there was revisionism
Quote:You seem to take the position that this is not the case at all since Hatch actually selected Ginsberg. Actually I think one of your own quotes from Sen. Hatch's autobiography contradicts your assertion,
...which surfaced around the time of Alito's confirmation, that you used was that the Republicans didn't fight against Ginsburg because they believed in the President's right to nominate whoever he wants. The implication was that the Republicans didn't like her liberal views but swallowed their opinion because this was the President's choice...
Quote:
...I(Sen. Hatch) indicated I thought they would be confirmed easily. I knew them both and believed that, while liberal, they were highly honest and capable jurists and their confirmation would not embarrass the President.
I think the operative words here are "while liberal". The fact that he was willing to vote for Judge Ginsberg was a reflection of his respect for the President's choice (granted at his own suggestion) even though he disagreed with her philosophies in general.
In conclusion, I respectfully disagree with your assertion. I don't believe there was any revisionism at all. It's clear to me from Sen. Hatch's autobiography that while he disagreed with her liberal philosophy he did not obstruct Judge Ginsberg's nomination because he knew she was honest and capable. That is essentially the arguement many Republicans made in rebuttal to Democratic opposition to Alito.
-----------
"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."
---Napoleon Bonaparte
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It would be easier to make these two cases seem symetrical if Alito had been Suggested by a Democrat to the Presidency. I do believe Meyers was, and Cudo's to bush for taking Reids suggestion.
I think the suggestion was disingenous, and I think it was disingenous because I don't think Reid or anybody could actually get Bush to pick somebody they wanted or anybody close, but they could help to lead him to pick somebody who would make his decision look ridiculous, which he did.
Why, if Democratic leaders had no hand in the selection process of Alito, in contrast to Hatch's hand in the choice of Ginsburg, would you even try to make the argument that the situations were the same?
Of course the Republicans wanted somebody less liberal than Ginsburg, but they picked a best-case scenario and they got it. They didn't vote for her out of respect for his choice...they voted for her because of his respect for their choice.
Why do you expect the Democrats to jump on board these worst case scenarios we were offered, and then say "thank you sir may I have another?"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Razza,
Let's go back to AURaptor's original post, the one to which I objected, and look at it bit by bit:
Quote:
The GOP didn't in any way think that Ginsberg was 'moderate',
Agree.
Quote:
but they still honored the idea that the President has the right to choose whom he wants to sit on the bench.
Disagree. According to Hatch, "there would be a great deal of resistance from the Republican side," to Bruce Babbitt. In other words, if Clinton had nominated Babbitt, the Republicans would have fought like hell to keep him from being confirmed. Being the minority party at the time they probably would have lost that fight (although there was some objection to Babbitt from his home state Senator,IIRC, which might have nixed the whole thing in the bud). If, as Hatch claims, the Republicans would've resisted Babbitt, than I have a hard time seeing how this correlates with AURaptor's statement that, "they still honored the idea that the President has the right to choose whom he wants to sit on the bench." That's the BS right there. Hatch told Clinton straight out that they weren't going to honor his choice.
Quote:
In short, the GOP acted like statesmen, and not fanatical, partisan hacks as the Dems have become.
Let's go back to Hatch: "there would be a great deal of resistance from the Republican side" Sounds partisan to me.
Much as I hate to admit it, the one who comes out of this looking the most like a statesman is Clinton. He had the majority in the Senate. He could've rammed through a much more liberal judge. Instead, he called up a member of the minority party and ended up selecting someone they assured him would be confirmed.
Quote:
The Senate is charged w/ the duty of 'advice and consent 'when the President nominates an executive or judicial post, and that's what the they did.
This is half right. To the Republicans at that time, the consent part was contingent on the President accepting the advice. The advice, from Hatch, was to choose another nominee because there would be no consent for the first choice.
Quote:
Even though the GOP could have tried to play Quid Pro Quo for the the Bork lynching, they felt the interest of the country was best served to simply take the vote and move on.
Once more, let's go back to that line: "there would be a great deal of resistance from the Republican side" That doesn't sound to me like they were prepared to take the vote and move on.
Quote:
The Dems werent' so compelled to do the same.
Impossible to know. Here is what would've had to happen to be able to say this: Bush calls up the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee; Finds out they won't support Alito; Discusses alternatives that the Democrats would support; Nominates one of those alternatives; Democrats filibuster the compromise nominee.
What I find interesting in this whole thing is that, according to Hatch, Clinton had not thought about Ginsburg until Hatch mentioned her name.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Razza,
Okay. Now let's move on to your post.
Quote:
Originally posted by Razza:
Soupcatcher:
You make an interesting point about the Ginsberg nomination, but I think your arguement may be a little deceptive. Not that I want to defend Aruptor, but I believe the premise of your arguement is that because Sen. Hatch mentioned Judge Ginsberg as on of the nominees that he and his fellow Republicans saw asQuote:that she is somehow transformed into the Republican Selected Nominee?
..far better than the other likely candidates from a liberal Democrat administration.
Well, Clinton had not even thought about Ginsburg before speaking with Hatch. Hatch is a Republican. Sounds like a Republican selected nominee to me.
Quote:
That seems a bit of a stretch since they had no power to actually make the selection in the first place.
Exactly. Which is one of the amazing things about the whole story. The Republicans had no power. And yet Clinton first asked their advice and then agreed to their suggestion.
Quote:
This is easily verified by that fact that the Republicans first choice wasn't even under consideration by the Clinton administration. The selection was purely Clinton's.
Huh? The two names that Hatch mentioned as acceptable to Republicans were Breyer and Ginsburg. One wasn't even under consideration by Clinton: Ginsburg. Both ended up being nominated by Clinton to the Supreme Court. How does that make Ginsburg's selection purely Clinton's???
Quote:
You also asserted that there was revisionismQuote:You seem to take the position that this is not the case at all since Hatch actually selected Ginsberg. Actually I think one of your own quotes from Sen. Hatch's autobiography contradicts your assertion,
...which surfaced around the time of Alito's confirmation, that you used was that the Republicans didn't fight against Ginsburg because they believed in the President's right to nominate whoever he wants. The implication was that the Republicans didn't like her liberal views but swallowed their opinion because this was the President's choice...Quote:
...I(Sen. Hatch) indicated I thought they would be confirmed easily. I knew them both and believed that, while liberal, they were highly honest and capable jurists and their confirmation would not embarrass the President.
I think the operative words here are "while liberal". The fact that he was willing to vote for Judge Ginsberg was a reflection of his respect for the President's choice (granted at his own suggestion) even though he disagreed with her philosophies in general.
Here is the revisionism that I spoke of (and that AURaptor's original post parroted):
Clinton nominated a liberal judge. The Republicans didn't like her but voted for her anyway because they believed anyone the President nominated should be accepted. Bush nominated a conservative judge. The Democrats should vote for him because anyone the President nominates should be accepted.
Do you see where this diverges from reality?
Quote:
In conclusion, I respectfully disagree with your assertion. I don't believe there was any revisionism at all. It's clear to me from Sen. Hatch's autobiography that while he disagreed with her liberal philosophy he did not obstruct Judge Ginsberg's nomination because he knew she was honest and capable. That is essentially the arguement many Republicans made in rebuttal to Democratic opposition to Alito.
Disagree. The beginning of the story is being omitted. The whole story is that the Republicans were prepared to fight against Clinton's nomination. He threw them a bone by asking who they would support instead. A few names were tossed out. The judges were liberal, the Republicans were the minority party after all and this was a Democratic adminstration so they couldn't ask for a conservative judge and expect to be taken seriously, but not as liberal as judges that Clinton could've nominated. Rather than risking an ugly confirmation battle, Clinton accepted their suggest
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
AURaptor,
.
Longevity in the Senate does not always equate to 'speaking for the party.'.
The politics of personal desturction is alive and well in the DNC. Witness is clearly shown by the Left's mindless, factless and vitriol filled attacks on Roberts and Alito. ( even making Alito's wife cry and leave the hearings )
Shame on the petty, hate filled and obscenely partisan Democrats.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Longevity in the Senate does not always equate to 'speaking for the party.'.
You are aware of the role that the Senate Judiciary Committee plays in the nomination process, aren't you? In two years, Hatch would become chairman of that committee. In this instance I'd put money on his claims over yours.
Quote:
The politics of personal desturction is alive and well in the DNC. Witness is clearly shown by the Left's mindless, factless and vitriol filled attacks on Roberts and Alito. ( even making Alito's wife cry and leave the hearings )
I see we're moving to a different field now. Okay. Because of your track record, forgive me if I'm wary of the accuracy of your claims. How about going through the transcript of that particular day of the Alito confirmation hearings and pulling out "factless" or "vitriol filled attacks" from Democrats to support your claims. (I'll concede "mindless" since that could easily apply to a number of things I've heard from Senators of both parties). I believe that there were quite a few hours of transcript before Mrs. Alito left the room. If memory serves me correctly, she teared up and left right in the middle of one of Republican Senator Graham's statements. That might help you in searching through the text.
Quote:
Shame on the petty, hate filled and obscenely partisan Democrats.
Umm. Okay. You're screed has been duly noted and will be placed in their permanent file.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Shame on Partisan Racists who think all Muslims are evil and should be exterminated on mass. Shame on petty minded little fools who can't see past their own bullshit. Shame on people who spread government sponsored hate because they really lack the mental abillity to think for themselves, and require some fool to tell them what to think.
Shame on the kind of moron who'll forgive their side for lying and cheating because it really didn't happen because they're the good guys.
Shame on the kind of person who is a fascist's wet dream, that's what I say.
What have you been told to think about it AU?
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Shame on Partisan Racists who think all Muslims are evil and should be exterminated on mass. Shame on petty minded little fools who can't see past their own bullshit. Shame on people who spread government sponsored hate because they really lack the mental abillity to think for themselves, and require some fool to tell them what to think.
Shame on the kind of moron who'll forgive their side for lying and cheating because it really didn't happen because they're the good guys.
Shame on the kind of person who is a fascist's wet dream, that's what I say.
What have you been told to think about it AU?
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.
Go back to sleep, citizen.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm not the one who is sleeping, and stop snoring, AU.
Isn't it time you went back to reindoctination camp? You need some new ideas, you've run out of your pre-programmed ones, it would seem.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:None of that in any way changes the substance of my post.
You are aware of the role that the Senate Judiciary Committee plays in the nomination process, aren't you? In two years, Hatch would become chairman of that committee. In this instance I'd put money on his claims over yours.
Quote:My track record on accuracy is pretty damn good, thank you very much
I see we're moving to a different field now. Okay. Because of your track record, forgive me if I'm wary of the accuracy of your claims. How about going through the transcript of that particular day of the Alito confirmation hearings and pulling out "factless" or "vitriol filled attacks"
You not liking what I say doesn't discredit my record one bit. You want to go back and rehash over what's been documented? Why ? What purpose would it serve ? Why don't you go read it for yourself, and maybe you'll read some of what I'm talking about for the 1st time. I know what I heard and read during the process. Graham was HIGHLIGHTING what it was the Democrats had done. ( I knew you'd try to spin it that way, though. ) But the record is clear. Look at how the Left treated the likes of Alito, Roberts and all the way back to Thomas and even Bork. I challenge any one to find similar treatment in the interview portion of the vote by the GOP on a Democrat nominee. You can't, because it simply hasn't happened. Not nearly to the same level of vitriol demonstrated by the Dems.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
don't yall know browncoats and polotics don't work. how many people are gonna get punched out cause this thread. all i see happenin is a bar fight with alot o busted egos.
heres the skinny
the gorram goverment sux. it is oppressive and wants to control its citizens. ever see V for Vendetta? the president has such little actual power that it don't matter what pansy gets put in there its just someone different to get mad at. the dmes will always complain the loudest and all the reps will always act superior. one of these days maybe we can get rid of the jackasses and elephants.
))<>((
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
My track record on accuracy is pretty damn good, thank you very much
What he means is:
I've never backed up anything with facts before, because they aren't there, so I'm not about to start now because you ask!
This is high-larious, seriously, AURaptor hasn't been accurate once in all the time I've seen him post on these boards.
Ignorantly ignoring reality and a racist bigot yes, accurate no.
Your track record on accuracy is, sweetheart, non-existant.
Quote:
You want to go back and rehash over what's been documented? Why ? What purpose would it serve ?
Translation:
The facts don't support AURaptors ignorant bigotry, so why would he want those included here?
Quote:
Why don't you go read it for yourself, and maybe you'll read some of what I'm talking about for the 1st time.
I doubt that, you see people who aren't ignorant racists find it hard to understand your point of view.
They don't like it when you present facts to 'em, I worked that out myself.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And I'm still waiting for that point by point with Aurpator about how GWB is a such a success and the economy (waves a careless hand) is doing great! But it seems he's abandoned ship on that one!
They don't like it when you hold them to their words. I worked that out myself.
---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And I'm still waiting for that point by point with Aurpator about how GWB is a such a success and the economy (waves a careless hand) is doing great!
Production and transportation of military supplies is up. Oil companies are seeing record profits, so much so that the government has to make a phoney show of public support in denying extra perks to them. The Middle East is unstable, and ripe for moulding. Nobody's bombed us in quite a while.
SUCCESS!
Mission: Accomplished.
They don't like it when you see it from another perspective, I worked that out myself Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And I'm still waiting for that point by point with Aurpator about how GWB is a such a success and the economy (waves a careless hand) is doing great! But it seems he's abandoned ship on that one!
They don't like it when you hold them to their words. I worked that out myself.
---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.
What's to respond to ? It's a moot point, Sig. Despite 15(?)million illegal aliens, hurricanes and disasters along the Gulf states,( along w/ knocked out oil drilling platforms and refineries) and military conflict in 2 different counries things are going damn well. Consumer confidence is up, the rate of growth is high ( 4.8 % ) and the unemployment is down. It's been that way for how many quarters in a row now ? What don't you understand?
Never mind, the space for that list would lead to another thread
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
citizen,
you sure do like to toss around the 'racist' charge a lot. Too bad you don't understand what that word means, or you sure as hell wouldn't be able to apply that toward me. But you need something to attack me with, since facts are so far gone from your reach.
Islam is not a race. It's a religion. Of sorts. Those who murder in the name of Islam ( teorrorist ) aren't genetically inferior to anyone, just brain washed.
Nothing I've said or posted in any way suggests I'm a 'racist'. Why ? Because I'm not a racist. It's that simple. But you're so unhinged and bent out of shape that I'd have a differnt view from you that you feel the need to strike out.
Too bad you're not unhinged and bent out of shape at what the Islamic terrorist are doing. Even after the London tube bombings, you ignore the real threat. I am at a loss as to how to discuss much of anything with you.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well, I wanted to make sure that these were the criteria you were using, not, say the Federal budget, balance of trade, manufacturing capacity, median wages, or total savings or any number of possible economic indicators. Because I was under the impression that when challenged to provide statistics you picked out positive indicators ... Which BTW were NOT the same as the ones you just cited earlier. Previously it was consumer confidence, consumer spending, and home sales ... just because they happened to be positive in the article that your eyes lit upon. Because when I lead you over a cliff in this dicussion you're not going to weasel out and decide that other indicators are more robust or meaningful. That's why!
What's to respond to ? It's a moot point, Sig. Despite 15(?)million illegal aliens, hurricanes and disasters along the Gulf states,(along w/ knocked out oil drilling platforms and refineries) and military conflict in 2 different counries things are going damn well. Consumer confidence is up, the rate of growth is high ( 4.8 % ) and the unemployment is down.
So my first question is: which indicators do you REALLY want to discuss? The first set, or the second set?
---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Soupcatcher, (great profile name by the way, one of my favorite small characters. Too bad he didn't get a chance to become a recurring one )
You stated,
Quote:
” Well, Clinton had not even thought about Ginsburg before speaking with Hatch. Hatch is a Republican. Sounds like a Republican selected nominee to me.”
I’m afraid this argument still doesn’t hold any water in my opinion. Are you saying that given other more conservative choices, Sen. Hatch and other Republicans would still have chosen Ginsberg? If the answer is no, then I think it cannot be argued that she was their selection. What does it matter where Pres. Clinton heard of Judge Ginsberg from? The President made the selection bearing in mind the advice he received from all those he consulted. I agree that he made a very shrewd choice (what do you expect from one of the shrewdest politicians of all time?) and give credit where credit is due, but the choice or selection was his in the end, not Hatch’s or his fellow republicans. Pres. Clinton was acting in a statesmanlike manner by taking Sen. Hatch’s advice to heart and I think it was statesmanlike of Sen. Hatch to offer the advice in a constructive way. Cheers all around for statesmanship! (And there was much rejoicing...yeaaa!)
In your post addressing Aruptor you stated,
Quote:You use this quote to support your contention that there were potential nominees that the GOP senators were prepared to fight tooth and nail over and damn the political consequences.
” According to Hatch, "there would be a great deal of resistance from the Republican side," to Bruce Babbitt”
I notice that you left out the an important piece of Hatch’s statement which was in total,
Quote:
” I told him that confirmation would not be easy. At least one Democrat would probably vote against Bruce, and there would be a great deal of resistance from the Republican side. I explained to the President that although he might prevail in the end, he should consider whether he wanted a tough, political battle over his first appointment to the Court.”
I think that fact that the Babbit would have had members of the President’s own party opposing him speaks volumes about how controversial a nominee he would have been. Sen. Hatch was giving the President good advice when he suggested staying away from this nominee. You later said when addressing my arguments, {quote]” A few names were tossed out. The judges were liberal, the Republicans were the minority party after all and this was a Democratic administration so they couldn't ask for a conservative judge and expect to be taken seriously, but not as liberal as judges that Clinton could've nominated. Rather than risking an ugly confirmation battle, Clinton accepted their suggestion. The Senate confirmed Ginsburg easily.”
I don’t think it is so cut and dry. Clearly, if members of the President’s own party would be opposed to a nominee the ugly confirmation battle would have been more ugly for the President not the GOP. If Sen. Hatch and the GOP senators wanted such a fight, they could’ve just kept their mouths shut and let the President choose a nominee they knew would cause a split in the President’s own party.
Sidenote: Hmmm! Didn’t a few GOP senators oppose Alito? Seems like that was a pretty ugly confirmation battle, very interesting.
You conclude by saying,
Quote:I think this is what happened in both cases actually. The GOP senators clearly would have preferred a different nominee than Ginsberg, but obviously did not have any choice in the matter, just as Democratic senators did not have any choice with Alito. There may be some validity to your point about asking for advice, but lets face it, the party in power doesn’t always have to seek an
” The revisionism changes the story from an example of the party in the majority asking for advice from the party in the minority to a case of the party in the minority having to bend over and take whatever the party in the majority decides.”
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
citizen,
you sure do like to toss around the 'racist' charge a lot.
Only where it's warranted
.In fact the only person I've described as racist around here would be YOU. So you see I don't toss it around a lot at all, I use it where it's warranted...
Quote:
But you need something to attack me with, since facts are so far gone from your reach.
No, facts are one my side, what you think are facts (i.e. bigotry ignorance, stupidity, propaganda, outright lies etc) are one yours. So yes, using your definition of facts they're beyond my reach and solely in your hands.
Using everyone else's term for facts, not so much.
Quote:
Islam is not a race. It's a religion. Of sorts. Those who murder in the name of Islam ( teorrorist ) aren't genetically inferior to anyone, just brain washed.
Ahhh, quibbling now are we? It's okay for AURaptor to hate a group because of religion, because a religion isn't a race! So in your reality the Nazi hatred of Jews was okay. It wasn't racism, after all.
Okay, your a religiousist, same thing as racist but instead of judging people based on race, you do it based on religion. Oh and since the vast majority of Western Muslims are in racial minorities and your discriminating against them, your also a racist.
Oh and so you know a believing one group to be genetically superior to another is only one form of racism. Another would be to judge an entire group on the actions of a small minority, like calling all African-Americans violent gang members because a small minority are involved in gangs, or calling all Catholics terrorists because of the IRA...
Do you see where I'm going here, or do we need to break out the AURaptor pop-up and crayoning book edition?
Quote:
Nothing I've said or posted in any way suggests I'm a 'racist'. Why ? Because I'm not a racist. It's that simple. But you're so unhinged and bent out of shape that I'd have a differnt view from you that you feel the need to strike out.
Yes, that's the reason. It's funny how racists and religiousist never think they are bigoted or anything of the sort.
Like PirateNews, he's so anti-Jew he could be a card carrying member of the Neo-Nazi's if he wanted, but he doesn't consider himself a racists/religousist/whatever, because it *REALLY* is the Jews that are evil! He's just pointing out the truth that the rest of us are too afraid to admit.
Like AURaptor, he's so anti-Muslim it's not funny. But he doesn't consider himself a racist/religiousist/whatever, because it *REALLY* is the Muslims that are evil! He's just pointing out the truth that the rest of us are too afraid to admit.
Quote:
Too bad you're not unhinged and bent out of shape at what the Islamic terrorist are doing. Even after the London tube bombings, you ignore the real threat. I am at a loss as to how to discuss much of anything with you.
What I don't irrationally hate people based on their religion like some sort of bigot? No your right, well done. I don't side step or hate Catholics for the bombings performed by the IRA, which, BTW have taken far more lives of my fellow countrymen than Islamic terrorism.
You see, I'm not an ignorant bigot, unlike you. Your at a loss on how to discuss these matters because you are two ignorant to actually understand the situation, you hear the racist/religousist propaganda and assume that's correct, mainly because you don't hear any other sides of the story because you're two bigoted to want to
.More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
citizen - you're so full of your self worth and politically correct crap that you can't stand to be shown where you're wrong. Instead of backing up your claim, you only make more absurd replies and hope everyone else forgets the oh so important point that you have no basis for your charges. I'm not a racist now, but I'm a Nazi? Boy, that's a good one. Too bad it's been used to death for the past 50 years by the Left wing nuts who whine like spoiled brats when they've beaten in any discussion.
Quote:
Oh and so you know a believing one group to be genetically superior to another is only one form of racism. Another would be to judge an entire group on the actions of a small minority, like calling all African-Americans violent gang members because a small minority are involved in gangs, or calling all Catholics terrorists because of the IRA...
Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing, you keep talkin! Amazing. There are not 'forms of racism', you dink. Racism is EXACTLY that..the belief in one group's inherent superiority over all others by way of 'higher' genetics. A notion I find to be fairly absurd, but there are folks who believe in that sort of thing. I'm not one of them, but you keep on throwing names out like 'racist, nazi' if it makes you feel any better. Lord knows, it's all you have.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:Well, I wanted to make sure that these were the criteria you were using, not, say the Federal budget, balance of trade, manufacturing capacity, median wages, or total savings or any number of possible economic indicators. Because I was under the impression that when challenged to provide statistics you picked out positive indicators ... Which BTW were NOT the same as the ones you just cited earlier. Previously it was consumer confidence, consumer spending, and home sales ... just because they happened to be positive in the article that your eyes lit upon. Because when I lead you over a cliff in this dicussion you're not going to weasel out and decide that other indicators are more robust or meaningful. That's why!
What's to respond to ? It's a moot point, Sig. Despite 15(?)million illegal aliens, hurricanes and disasters along the Gulf states,(along w/ knocked out oil drilling platforms and refineries) and military conflict in 2 different counries things are going damn well. Consumer confidence is up, the rate of growth is high ( 4.8 % ) and the unemployment is down.
So my first question is: which indicators do you REALLY want to discuss? The first set, or the second set?
---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.
I merely added more to the list, so you could get a broader picture of just how good this economy is doing. You seem , by the post you leave, to think that in a ' good ' economy, EVERYTHING is going great, and in a 'bad' economy, NOTHING is going well. Guess what, there were folks who made more $$ during the great depression, even w/ the high unemployment.
And just how are other industrialized nations doing ? What about France? Germany ? How good is their economic situations? Unemployment ? China and India are booming, we know that from the oil situation, but what about the rest of Europe?
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Razza,
Yeah, if Firefly had continued it would have been nice to see more of Monty. Of course, it would have been nice if Firefly continued. But what can you do. 
Fox.
Quote:
I’m afraid this argument still doesn’t hold any water in my opinion. Are you saying that given other more conservative choices, Sen. Hatch and other Republicans would still have chosen Ginsberg? If the answer is no, then I think it cannot be argued that she was their selection. What does it matter where Pres. Clinton heard of Judge Ginsberg from? The President made the selection bearing in mind the advice he received from all those he consulted. I agree that he made a very shrewd choice (what do you expect from one of the shrewdest politicians of all time?) and give credit where credit is due, but the choice or selection was his in the end, not Hatch’s or his fellow republicans. Pres. Clinton was acting in a statesmanlike manner by taking Sen. Hatch’s advice to heart and I think it was statesmanlike of Sen. Hatch to offer the advice in a constructive way. Cheers all around for statesmanship! (And there was much rejoicing...yeaaa!)
Ah. I see where we're talking past each other on this one. You're right in that the selection was Clinton's and Clinton's alone and my use of the word selection is inaccurate. How about one of these: Ginsburg was Clinton's "Republican pre-approved" selection; Ginsburg was Clinton's "Republican suggested" selection; Ginsburg was Clinton's "If I hadn't talked to Hatch there is a high probabily I wouldn't have made this" selection. Any of those maintain what I'm basically trying to get across (that there was Republican input into the decision making process, by the design of the President, that resulted in Ginsburg being nominated) while being more accurate in regards to who exactly was responsible for the selection. The reason why I think this is important is because it doesn't fit with the narrative that was presented by the GOP during the Alito confirmation hearings (and which was reproduced by AURaptor in their post). They were the ones who brought up the Ginsburg nomination as a similar situation. The main point of their narrative was that they, as the minority party, had to accept the President's nominee so the Democrats needed to do the same with Alito. What they neglected to mention with their narrative was that the Republicans were prepared to contest nominees that they felt were too liberal. They agreed to not contest Ginsburg because she was not as liberal as she could have been. In other words, the Ginsburg nomination was a compromise made by a President who didn't have to compromise. In the Alito case, you couldn't really get a much more conservative judge. He was not a compromise nominee. There was no input from the Democrats into his selection. So the situations were not similar at all. And for the GOP to bring up the Ginsburg nomination as an example that was similar to the Alito case, and especially as an example of them having to acquiesce to whoever the President chose, was disingenuous.
Quote:
In your post addressing Aruptor you stated,
Quote:
” According to Hatch, "there would be a great deal of resistance from the Republican side," to Bruce Babbitt”
You use this quote to support your contention that there were potential nominees that the GOP senators were prepared to fight tooth and nail over and damn the political consequences.
I notice that you left out the an important piece of Hatch’s statement which was in total,
Quote:
” I told him that confirmation would not be easy. At least one Democrat would probably vote against Bruce, and there would be a great deal of resistance from the Republican side. I explained to the President that although he might prevail in the end, he should consider whether he wanted a tough, political battle over his first appointment to the Court.”
I think that fact that the Babbit would have had members of the President’s own party opposing him speaks volumes about how controversial a noNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:None of that in any way changes the substance of my post.
You are aware of the role that the Senate Judiciary Committee plays in the nomination process, aren't you? In two years, Hatch would become chairman of that committee. In this instance I'd put money on his claims over yours.
Which is that the GOP, "honored the idea that the President has the right to choose whom he wants to sit on the bench." during the Ginsburg nomination? And when I present evidence from a prominent Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee that doesn't support that claim you discount it. Okay, that's your story and you're sticking to it. Message received.
Quote:Quote:My track record on accuracy is pretty damn good, thank you very much
I see we're moving to a different field now. Okay. Because of your track record, forgive me if I'm wary of the accuracy of your claims. How about going through the transcript of that particular day of the Alito confirmation hearings and pulling out "factless" or "vitriol filled attacks"
You can't, because it simply hasn't happened. Not nearly to the same level of vitriol demonstrated by the Dems.
Actually, your precision has been pretty damn good. Accuracy, not so much. If I may step back and ponder for a bit, I have noticed that your positions and your statements are remarkably similiar to the GOP pundit positions in many areas (not all areas, IIRC you diverge from some of the positions that are influenced by the fundamentalist branch of the GOP - such as evolution). You are a reliable indicator of the official GOP message in many instances. And, like the GOP pundits, your position is invariant. Oftentimes that position can be distilled down to, "Democrats evil. Republicans good." The hatred that you have for the Democratic party is easily discernable. I get that. I even understand where you're coming from. I spent most of Clinton's Presidency listening to right-wing radio so I know what it's like to hate Democrats and parrot vitriol against them. I've been there. However, your hatred of the Democrats might be preventing you from being able to discuss rationally most political topics. Just a thought. And this idea that Democrats are hate-filled and spew vitriol might actually be projection on your part.
During the run-up to the election I was on Ken Mehlman's e-mail list (basically, the one that goes out to millions of people) so I was aware of the particular talking points that the Republican party was pushing on any particular day. And, like the GOP pundits, you rarely failed to disappoint in your adherence to those talking points. As such, my main goal in engaging with you is to see if you will ever back away from a GOP talking point, once you have put it out there. Now I probably haven't done a good job of giving you a reason to back away from a talking point. And I put that down to my own deficiencies in making a compelling argument. But I'd like to think that you were receptive. However, I'm starting to get the feeling that nothing I could write, or any evidence that I could bring up, would sway you from the GOP talking points that you have embraced. And, if that is the case, I completely understand because I've been there before. As far as Clinton and the Democrats were concerned there was nothing t
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
citizen - you're so full of your self worth and politically correct crap that you can't stand to be shown where you're wrong.
Your so full of your own over inflated ego and hatred of anyone not you, you can't stand to be wrong. Which is whenever you open your vacuous hole, BTW
.I also find it funny that you consider the idea of not hating and discriminating against an entire people based on religion is PC crap. Very telling...
Quote:
Instead of backing up your claim, you only make more absurd replies and hope everyone else forgets the oh so important point that you have no basis for your charges.
Oh I'm sorry sweet heart, did you miss it? You say all Muslims are evil terrorists, based on the actions of a very small minority. That's basically what bigotry and religiousism is, honey.
If you judge people based on what colour their skin is, that is racism.
If you judge people based on what religion they have, that is religiousism.
Quote:
I'm not a racist now, but I'm a Nazi? Boy, that's a good one. Too bad it's been used to death for the past 50 years by the Left wing nuts who whine like spoiled brats when they've beaten in any discussion.
Oh honey, I never said you were a Nazi, but you seem to jump on that pretty quick, guilty conscience? Maybe a little mistake with the extra curricula groups one joined during one's college days perhaps?
Indignant attempts to gain moral supiriority they aren't entitled too, the stock reserve of the far right when they're inevitably beaten in an argument.
Quote:
Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing, you keep talkin! Amazing.
Funny, just when I've heard the stupidest thing a human being can possibly say, you turn up.
I assume you're laywers ring you when something stupid has been said, since you have the patent an' all
.Quote:
There are not 'forms of racism', you dink.
No, there are of course forms of rationalisation you doughnut. Now what you’re doing is confusing the rationalisation with the crime, so to speak. Racism is where one judges a person or group based on race. You said racism is where one assumes a race is inferior due to genetics, that's a rationalisation, you dipstick
.Religiousism is where one judges a person or group based on religion. Now you've said, quite openly on these forums that all Muslims are terrorists. So you're judging all Muslims to be terrorists, because they're Muslim, which means you discriminate against people based on Religion, which means you are a... anyone... that's right a religiousist bigot.
Quote:
I'm not one of them, but you keep on throwing names out like 'racist, nazi' if it makes you feel any better. Lord knows, it's all you have.
I have plenty in my life. You however sound like a very sad lonely and angry little individual. How's that working out for ya?
So, you sound like a racist (except you discriminate on religion rather than race) so what is the logical conclusion to take from this?
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well, it is P.C. crap. Thinking that every one is equally wonderful, and that not one group is any less than all the rest. Sorry pal, but terrorist are less than human. End of discussion.
I also find it funny that you consider the idea of not hating and discriminating against an entire people based on religion is PC crap
Quote:
Oh I'm sorry sweet heart, did you miss it? You say all Muslims are evil terrorists, based on the actions of a very small minority. That's basically what bigotry and religiousism is, honey.
First of all, I never said that. I only raised the point that not too many Muslims seem to be up in arms about their brothers murdering men, women and children via suicide bombs, etc...We've already had this discussion, why are we still going over it? Oh, I know... you have nothing else but to accuse me of things which I'm not. Now I remember.
Second of all, remember that thinly veiled reference I made about you being gay? Your choice of wrods like 'sweet heart, honey' might have been where I got that from. ( not that there's anything wrong w/that
) *** This marks the point where citizen will call me homophobic, or some such nonsense *** Quote:
Indignant attempts to gain moral supiriority they aren't entitled too, the stock reserve of the far right when they're inevitably beaten in an argument
Moral superiority was gained long ago, and it had nothing to do w/ any 'entitlement'. You support terrorist's rights, I don't.
Quote:Conclusion? citizen is a pin head who doesn't know the difference between racism and religiousism ( new word of the day ), and simply makes up what ever charge makes him feel good at the time to 'win' his argument.
So, you sound like a racist (except you discriminate on religion rather than race) so what is the logical conclusion to take from this?
Most of your post was nothing more than repeating of your old post, petty ad hominems,and a lie or two added for effect. Time to move on.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
First of all, I never said that.
This is simply amazing! You've insinuated it in this VERY post. Right here:
Quote:
Well, it is P.C. crap. Thinking that every one is equally wonderful, and that not one group is any less than all the rest. Sorry pal, but terrorist are less than human. End of discussion.
I say Muslim, you hear terrorist. One can only think that in your mind Muslim == Terrorist.
Here's another:
Quote:
Now, the rest of us, Non muslims and *some* muslims alike, aren't too keen on the idea of seeing our neighbors, friends and family blown up in a subway station, seeing their heads sawed off by masked thugs as the video tape rolls, or watch as airliners are flown into sky scrapers.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=19577&m=281728#281728
Some Muslims, clearly indicating the minority, clearly indicating that the majority of Muslims are evil terrorists...
Quote:
Second of all, remember that thinly veiled reference I made about you being gay? Your choice of wrods like 'sweet heart, honey' might have been where I got that from.
Oh sweet pea, it's nothing to do with me being gay, you seem to be really flogging THAT dead horse.
When my three year-old god-daughter acts out and I'm trying to teach her not to that's how I speak to her. Simply put, if you want to act and talk like a three year old little girl, spitting you dummy and throwing your toys out of the pram and such, well frankly dear, I'm going to speak to you like one.
Quote:
*** This marks the point where citizen will call me homophobic, or some such nonsense ***
Well if you insist I can drag out some childish immature innuendo regarding your sexuality too. Let’s see, how about:
You really DO like flogging those dead horses don’t you…
Quote:
Moral superiority was gained long ago, and it had nothing to do w/ any 'entitlement'. You support terrorist's rights, I don't.
Even if you ever had it you lost it the moment you accused me of being a terrorist and a terrorist supporter.
Quote:
Conclusion? citizen is a pin head who doesn't know the difference between racism and religiousism ( new word of the day ), and simply makes up what ever charge makes him feel good at the time to 'win' his argument.
Religiousism is actually in the dictionary, not a new word at all
.As for the rest, well I've backed up my accusations, as per usual all you've done is mouth off
.Quote:
Most of your post was nothing more than repeating of your old post, petty ad hominems,and a lie or two added for effect.
Well I wasn't going to say anything but people do have to repeat themselves several times when talking to you, and you still don't get it. Thick skull syndrome? Undoubtedly.
Quote:
Time to move on.
Don't let me stop you. I'm still waiting for that picture you promised you'd draw for me with your crayons; I've cleared a space on the fridge, now be a good little boy and run along.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
citizen,
I finally see your problem. You see only what you want, and then make up what ever the hell you feel like to fill in the rest. That explains it all. I've been wasting time dealing w/ an imbecile.
G'day.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
citizen,
I finally see your problem. You see only what you want, and then make up what ever the hell you feel like to fill in the rest. That explains it all. I've been wasting time dealing w/ an imbecile.
G'day.
AURaptor:
Right that's it young man! I've had just about as much of you're lip as I'm going to take! If you're going to act like a child you'll damn well be treated like one!
You sit yourself down on the naughty thread and you think about your behaviour, one minute for every year of your mental age!
Now when those three minutes are up you can come back and appologise.
Then you can tell me again how it's only wrong to judge people based on religion if someone else does it
.More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
citizen -
I'm sorry. Sorry that you're such a petty little wanker who is far too deluded to get past your own silly false preconceptions to have any sort of meaningful, coherent and mature dicsussion.
It is a shame.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm supporting the majority view my friend, your supporting you own twisted reality.
I mean I've had plenty meaningful coherent discussions with people here. You haven't had a meaningful discussion with anyone.
This is the short and tall of it.
Just about everyone here ignores you, just like most ignore PirateNews. I've had personal messages before now saying things like "thanks for replying to that idiot, I can't be bothered anymore" from more than one person. I suppose that won't tell you anything, you won't listen to reality even if it turns up and slaps you around the face with you're ignorant jumped up bigoted little comments. You just still don't get it.
I've tried humour, I've tried politeness, I've tried logic, I've tried confrontation, I've tried making you angry (which is whenever someone steps up with an opinion counter to yours) and you still don't get it.
You're right, it is a shame.
One day one can only hope that you wake up and stop blaming Liberals and Muslims for all your problems. That you'll stop blaming me and everyone else here for the inevitable flame war and personal insults that get thrown around whenever you post, but I really do doubt it.
I do wonder if you have the mental capacity.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
oh well...Trump follows them all as stocks crash
Emperor Has No Clothes
Trump Approval Rating Goes Negative With Republican Pollster for First Time
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-approval-rating-polls-2055795
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Still gald he's President.
worst President in modern US history, maybe even worse than a senile Biden and crazy Kamala Harris
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I do wonder if you have the mental capacity.
There has been a brain malfunction for some time, is it the tv, the radio or maybe a regressive child hood religion trauma since the Rabbi was biting flesh from the baby penis?
how deep did you guys dig....
perhaps there is a capicity to repeat gibberish from the babylon Jew texts
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Thinking that every one is equally wonderful
the worship of guys with Shekels, bomb Palestine to death...let's have multiple citizenships Canadian, Israeli or Patriot US Citizen...but when it hits the fan what side to back? where to flee??
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME