I think BUSH is a fucking tool!

[JoesHO]

I believe since he was elected, that democracy must rule the day, and his cabinet members should be approved!!!

I feel the disent process should be left for things like judges, and intelligence positions!! not for cabinet members..

I do not like condi at all and yes I think she helopped in the lies !!! but he won the election and that is that.

why waste time on the confirmation of cabinet members!!!!

[Winetalk.com]

Joe, Democrats learned the valuable lesson in the last 10 years...
how to shot themselves in the foot and alienate EVERYBODY, including their support base.

[Mike AI]

To the victor goes the spoils.....


Did you now some people in Europe though Bush was a Devil Worshipper?

http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pag...ticleID=1823806 (http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pageID=cp_oddities_home&articleID=1823806)

[Jesse_DD]

Joesho - why don't you like Condi? Curious.

[JoesHO]

Originally posted by Jesse_DD@Jan 26 2005, 07:51 AM
Joesho - why don't you like Condi? Curious.
I believe she lied to the public, and I do not think that is acceptable ( I know it is common place from both sides) but somewhere someone must make a stopping point.

I believe that the lies of this administration ( and condi specifically) are out of control

unlike the normal bullshit lies from all politicians that waiver, these lies are much more destuctive in nature to our society as a whole, and to the values of life and liberty that we were founded on as a nation, and that we hold so dear as in what seperates us from the nations we are try to "develop into democracy"

The lies perputuated by this adminstration have excedeeded even the checks and balence syste3ms that our forefathers put in place as protections from these exact things!

I am afraid that the damn is spilling over the levey!!!!

[Almighty Colin]

How do you know when a politician is lying?
























When they move their lips. (Oldie but still good)

[PornoDoggy]

Joe .... you may want to read the Constitution, bud. The right to appoint a Cabinet member is given to the president, with the advice & consent of the Senate.

The Democrats today are doing absolutely nothing that the Republicans haven't done when the situation is reversed.

The party in power ALWAYS whines about obstructionism when the other side raises objections to their nominee. Look at the situation with judges - by the beginning of Clinton's second term there were dozens of judicial vacancies that the Senate could not hold confirmation hearing on. Today the Republicans are whining about 8.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Jan 26 2005, 01:55 PM
Joe .... you may want to read the Constitution, bud. The right to appoint a Cabinet member is given to the president, with the advice & consent of the Senate.

The Democrats today are doing absolutely nothing that the Republicans haven't done when the situation is reversed.

The party in power ALWAYS whines about obstructionism when the other side raises objections to their nominee. Look at the situation with judges - by the beginning of Clinton's second term there were dozens of judicial vacancies that the Senate could not hold confirmation hearing on. Today the Republicans are whining about 8.
There is a lot of whining in politics. That is for sure.

[wig]

Originally posted by Almighty Colin+Jan 26 2005, 02:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Almighty Colin @ Jan 26 2005, 02:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-PornoDoggy@Jan 26 2005, 01:55 PM
Joe .... you may want to read the Constitution, bud. The right to appoint a Cabinet member is given to the president, with the advice & consent of the Senate.

The Democrats today are doing absolutely nothing that the Republicans haven't done when the situation is reversed.

The party in power ALWAYS whines about obstructionism when the other side raises objections to their nominee. Look at the situation with judges - by the beginning of Clinton's second term there were dozens of judicial vacancies that the Senate could not hold confirmation hearing on. Today the Republicans are whining about 8.
There is a lot of whining in politics. That is for sure. [/b][/quote]
And we should be happy because it is this back and forth that keeps us vacillating around the mean -- the point which denotes the perfect balance that will never be achieved.

Whining about the whining is for ideologues or people with too much time on their hands.

:ph34r:

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by wig+Jan 26 2005, 02:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (wig @ Jan 26 2005, 02:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Almighty Colin@Jan 26 2005, 02:05 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-PornoDoggy@Jan 26 2005, 01:55 PM
Joe .... you may want to read the Constitution, bud. The right to appoint a Cabinet member is given to the president, with the advice & consent of the Senate.

The Democrats today are doing absolutely nothing that the Republicans haven't done when the situation is reversed.

The party in power ALWAYS whines about obstructionism when the other side raises objections to their nominee. Look at the situation with judges - by the beginning of Clinton's second term there were dozens of judicial vacancies that the Senate could not hold confirmation hearing on. Today the Republicans are whining about 8.
There is a lot of whining in politics. That is for sure.
And we should be happy because it is this back and forth that keeps us vacillating around the mean -- the point which denotes the perfect balance that will never be achieved.

Whining about the whining is for ideologues or people with too much time on their hands.

:ph34r: [/b][/quote]
I'm both of those!

Then there's the whining about the whining about the whining. :nyanya:

(Damn, now you get another chance)

[wig]

Originally posted by Almighty Colin+Jan 26 2005, 02:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Almighty Colin @ Jan 26 2005, 02:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by wig@Jan 26 2005, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by Almighty Colin@Jan 26 2005, 02:05 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-PornoDoggy@Jan 26 2005, 01:55 PM
Joe .... you may want to read the Constitution, bud. The right to appoint a Cabinet member is given to the president, with the advice & consent of the Senate.

The Democrats today are doing absolutely nothing that the Republicans haven't done when the situation is reversed.

The party in power ALWAYS whines about obstructionism when the other side raises objections to their nominee. Look at the situation with judges - by the beginning of Clinton's second term there were dozens of judicial vacancies that the Senate could not hold confirmation hearing on. Today the Republicans are whining about 8.
There is a lot of whining in politics. That is for sure.
And we should be happy because it is this back and forth that keeps us vacillating around the mean -- the point which denotes the perfect balance that will never be achieved.

Whining about the whining is for ideologues or people with too much time on their hands.

:ph34r:
I'm both of those!

Then there's the whining about the whining about the whining. :nyanya:

(Damn, now you get another chance) [/b][/quote]
LOL

You are good!

:P

[TheEnforcer]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Jan 26 2005, 01:55 PM
Joe .... you may want to read the Constitution, bud. The right to appoint a Cabinet member is given to the president, with the advice & consent of the Senate.

The Democrats today are doing absolutely nothing that the Republicans haven't done when the situation is reversed.

The party in power ALWAYS whines about obstructionism when the other side raises objections to their nominee. Look at the situation with judges - by the beginning of Clinton's second term there were dozens of judicial vacancies that the Senate could not hold confirmation hearing on. Today the Republicans are whining about 8.
Don't get me started on judges. Republicans repeatedly didn't even give Clinton appointees COMMITTEE hearings much less votes. helene White was held up for 4 years and never got a vote in committee. Repubs are lying sacks of shit when it comes to judicial appointments.

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by TheEnforcer+Jan 26 2005, 02:37 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheEnforcer @ Jan 26 2005, 02:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-PornoDoggy@Jan 26 2005, 01:55 PM
Joe .... you may want to read the Constitution, bud. The right to appoint a Cabinet member is given to the president, with the advice & consent of the Senate.

The Democrats today are doing absolutely nothing that the Republicans haven't done when the situation is reversed.

The party in power ALWAYS whines about obstructionism when the other side raises objections to their nominee. Look at the situation with judges - by the beginning of Clinton's second term there were dozens of judicial vacancies that the Senate could not hold confirmation hearing on. Today the Republicans are whining about 8.
Don't get me started on judges. Republicans repeatedly didn't even give Clinton appointees COMMITTEE hearings much less votes. helene White was held up for 4 years and never got a vote in committee. Repubs are lying sacks of shit when it comes to judicial appointments. [/b][/quote]


I knew the election would continue to pay dividends for my own personal amusement.


TE, because I like you, here isa little info about the Judge you mentioned.

That leaves the implication that the White and Lewis nominations were stalled because of sheer partisanship, thus justifying retaliation now that the Senate is in Democratic hands. But the story is a bit more complicated.
Helene White happens to be the wife of Carl Levin's cousin Charles Levin, a former member of the Michigan Supreme Court. In 1996, Judge White was threatening to run as an independent for the state Supreme Court. This horrified Michigan Democrats, who feared that she might draw off a big chunk of the liberal vote. The White House, according to state political sources, was persuaded to forestall that possibility by nominating her for a seat on the Sixth Circuit. (The Democratic candidate went on to lose anyway.)

But her nomination outraged then-Sen. Spencer Abraham, a Michigan Republican who is now secretary of energy. Mr. Abraham traded his help for getting three Michigan nominees to the federal courts approved by the GOP Senate in exchange for Clinton-judge pickers holding off on further nominations.

When the White House went ahead with the White nomination anyway, Sen. Abraham made no secret of his feeling that he had been double-crossed. He then placed his hold on the White nomination and later the Lewis nomination.

All of this came well into the Clinton tenure. Newly elected presidents, including Mr. Clinton, have generally received speedy accommodation for their initial nominees. Blocking nominees so early makes it appear the Democrats are motivated by little more than partisanship stemming from disappointment at the outcome of the 2000 election and the desire to impose an ideological litmus test on judicial nominees.

Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, a member of the Judiciary Committee, let the cat out of the bag shortly after the Democrats took over the Senate. The committee, he announced, would be justified in opposing nominees "whose views fall outside the mainstream"--in other words, anybody with whom he and his Democratic colleagues disagreed.

[grimm]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Jan 26 2005, 07:38 AM
To the victor goes the spoils.....


Did you now some people in Europe though Bush was a Devil Worshipper?

http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pag...ticleID=1823806 (http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pageID=cp_oddities_home&articleID=1823806)
is he a Mason? LOL;)