|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 186 responses total. |
tod
|
|
response 112 of 186:
| 
Jan 24 21:08 UTC 2006 |
President Edgar Stiles in 2008
|
klg
|
|
response 113 of 186:
|
Jan 25 02:23 UTC 2006 |
Mitt Romney!
|
gull
|
|
response 114 of 186:
|
Jan 25 03:16 UTC 2006 |
Re resp:108: Yeah, I can think of lots of stuff I have moral issues
with funding. NSA wiretapping, for example. Why is it only abortion
where people get to argue they should be able to pick and choose?
|
bru
|
|
response 115 of 186:
|
Jan 25 05:52 UTC 2006 |
I could support Condi for President.
I could support Jeb Bush for President.
I could support Pataki for president.
I could support Newt Gingrich for president.
All of them are good choices.
What we have a problem with the Court nomination proceedure is that the
liberals have totaly lost sight of what their role is. Their job is to
vet the person chosen by the president and make sure he is fit to hold
that position.
They are not supposed to look at his personal views on any subject
other than to get a feel for him as a person. When Ginsberg was
nominated, even thought she was a staunch supporter of Roe v. Wade, the
republicans voted witht eh dems to confirm her unanimously. Why?
Because she was a good choice for the position.
Same with Alito. The man has the highest recomendations from his
peers, but the dems are looking to get a solid vote against him based
on his personal beliefs, not his skill on the bench.
Disgusting.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 116 of 186:
|
Jan 25 06:20 UTC 2006 |
You can say all that because you think that Alito is "your man" on abortion,
gay marriage, executive power, etc.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 117 of 186:
|
Jan 25 07:04 UTC 2006 |
As usual, bru is wrong on his facts. The senate did not vote unanimously to
confirm Ginsberg.
|
klg
|
|
response 118 of 186:
|
Jan 25 11:49 UTC 2006 |
Who were the 3 against?
|
johnnie
|
|
response 119 of 186:
|
Jan 25 14:13 UTC 2006 |
>Alito...has the highest recomendations from his peers, but the dems are
>looking to get a solid vote against him based on his personal beliefs...
>Disgusting.
So when President Hillary has a vacancy to fill due to the resignation
of, say, Justice Thomas, and she nominates a highly intelligent and
experienced jurist who is so personally liberal as to make Michael Moore
look like a goddamn JohnBircher, you'll argue that Republicans should
absolutely vote to confirm, yes?
|
slynne
|
|
response 120 of 186:
|
Jan 25 14:34 UTC 2006 |
Oh come on. He'll argue that Republicans should NOT confirm but based
on the person's skills on the bench. EVERYONE knows that being liberal
is a symptom of not having skills on the bench. ;)
|
twenex
|
|
response 121 of 186:
|
Jan 25 15:32 UTC 2006 |
Well of course. Naturally. As a law of physics. Etc.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 122 of 186:
|
Jan 25 20:38 UTC 2006 |
I believe I saw a news report that "the committee" (?) had voted 10-8 to
recommend Alito's nomination.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 123 of 186:
|
Jan 25 20:38 UTC 2006 |
The Judiciary Committee perchance? Yeah, all the Dems voted no.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 124 of 186:
|
Jan 25 21:35 UTC 2006 |
Most of them will vote no on the floor as well. A few GOP senators (including
Stevens, oddly enough) haven't committed yet.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 125 of 186:
|
Jan 26 05:08 UTC 2006 |
resp:102 If she does run, I have no problem voting against her.
|
bru
|
|
response 126 of 186:
|
Jan 26 05:10 UTC 2006 |
Ginsberg had 96 yes votes. so not unanimous, but a pretty hefty
bipartisan vote.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 127 of 186:
|
Jan 26 11:54 UTC 2006 |
But, of course, while Alito is waaaaaaayyyyy over to the right, Ginsberg
was just a shade left of center. Heck, she was recommended to Clinton
by Senator Hatch.
|
tod
|
|
response 128 of 186:
|
Jan 26 12:56 UTC 2006 |
re #125
No doubt
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 129 of 186:
|
Jan 26 14:59 UTC 2006 |
I'm envisioning a suited male or woman appearing at my door following
confirmation, prepared to take my uterus into custody.
|
tod
|
|
response 130 of 186:
|
Jan 26 17:22 UTC 2006 |
"Where was your uterus on the night of the 7th, Ma'am?"
|
klg
|
|
response 131 of 186:
|
Jan 26 17:24 UTC 2006 |
ture of Corruption Alert -- Culture of Corruption Alert -- Culture of C
For my bud, RW, according to the LA Times in 2003
" . . . At least 17 senators and 11 members of the House have children,
spouses or other close relatives who lobby or work as consultants, most
in Washington, according to lobbyist reports, financial-disclosure
forms and other state and federal records. Many are paid by clients who
count on the related lawmaker for support.
"But Harry Reid is in a class by himself. One of his sons and his son-
in-law lobby in Washington for companies, trade groups and
municipalities seeking Reid's help in the Senate. A second son has
lobbied in Nevada for some of those same interests, and a third has
represented a couple of them as a litigator.
"In the last four years alone, their firms have collected more than $2
million in lobbying fees from special interests that were represented
by the kids and helped by the senator in Washington. . . ."
ption -- Culture of Corruption Alert -- Culture of Corruption Alert -
|
tod
|
|
response 132 of 186:
|
Jan 26 17:30 UTC 2006 |
Congress today announced that the office of President of the United
States of America will be out-sourced to India as of January 13, 2006.
The move is being made to save the President's $400,000 yearly salary,
and also a record $521 billion in deficit expenditures and related overhead
the office has incurred during the last 5 years.
"We believe this is a wise move financially. The cost savings should be
significant," stated Congressman Thomas Reynolds (R-WA). Reynolds, with
the aid of the Government Accounting Office, has studied out-Sourcing of
American jobs extensively. "We cannot expect to remain competitive on
the world stage with the current level of cash outlay," Reynolds noted.
Mr. Bush was informed by email this morning of his termination.
Preparations for the job move have been underway for sometime.
Gurvinder Singh of Indus Teleservices, Mumbai, India, will be assuming the
office of President as of January 13, 2006.
Mr. Singh was born in the United States while his Indian parents were
vacationing at Niagara Falls, thus making him eligible for the
position. He will receive a salary of $320 (USD) a month but with no health
coverage or other benefits.
It is believed that Mr. Singh will be able to handle his job
responsibilities without a support staff. Due to the time difference
between the US and India, he will be working primarily at night, when few
offices of the US Government will be open. "Working nights will allow me to
keep my day job at the American Express call center," stated Mr. Singh in an
exclusive interview. "I am excited about this position.
I always hoped I would be President someday."
A Congressional spokesperson noted that while Mr. Singh may not be
fully aware of all the issues involved in the office of President, this
should not be a problem because Bush was not familiar with the issues either.
Mr. Singh will rely upon a script tree that will enable him to respond
effectively to most topics of concern. Using these canned responses, he can
address common concerns without having to understand the underlying issues
at all.
"We know these scripting tools work," stated the spokesperson.
"President Bush has used them successfully for years." Mr. Singh may have
problems with the Texas
drawl, but lately Bush has abandoned the "down home" persona in his effort
to appear intelligent and on top of the Katrina situation.
Bush will receive health coverage, expenses, and salary until his final
day of employment. Following a two week waiting period, he will be eligible
for $240 a week unemployment for 13 weeks. Unfortunately he will not be
eligible for Medicaid, as his unemployment benefits will exceed the allowed
limit.
Mr. Bush has been provided the out-placement services of Manpower, Inc.
to help him write a resume and prepare for his upcoming job transition.
According to Manpower, Mr. Bush may have difficulties in securing a new
position due to limited practical work experience. A greeter position
at Wal-Mart was suggested due to Bush's extensive experience shaking hands
with a phony smile.
Another possibility is Bush's re-enlistment in the Texas Air National
Guard. His prior records are conspicuously vague but should he choose this
option, he would likely be stationed in Waco, TX for a month, before being
sent to Iraq, a country he has visited. "I've been there, I know all about
Iraq," stated Mr. Bush, who gained invaluable knowledge of the country in a
visit to the Baghdad Airport's terminal and gift shop.
Sources in Baghdad and Falluja say Mr. Bush would receive a warm
reception from local Iraqis. They have asked to be provided with details of
his arrival so that they might arrange an appropriate welcome.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 133 of 186:
|
Jan 26 18:21 UTC 2006 |
re #131:
> "But Harry Reid is in a class by himself. One of his sons and
> his son- in-law lobby in Washington for companies, trade groups
> and municipalities seeking Reid's help in the Senate.
Except for the fact that he has more sons, that doesn't put Reid
in "a class by himself." It puts him in a class with Ted Stevens
and Tom DeLay (and probably, if I knew more about their affairs,
many more politicians from both parties..)
That their corrupt practices may be commonplace doesn't excuse any
one of them, of course.. I'm not sure if that was what klg meant
to imply with his "See! the Democrats do it, too.." interjection.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 134 of 186:
|
Jan 26 18:56 UTC 2006 |
I think that KLG is trying to demonstrate that Republican corruption is OK
because Democrats do it too. That's similar to the Republican excuse for
being so enthusiastic about torturing "enemy combatants": the "enemy" does
it too.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 135 of 186:
|
Jan 26 19:03 UTC 2006 |
Corruption is an inevitable result of one-party rule, no matter whether
the one party is Republican, Democrat, Communist, or whatever. If the
senator from Nevada has done things which are illegal, I'd favor
prosecuting him the same as any other senator of any party who breaks
the law.
|
klg
|
|
response 136 of 186:
|
Jan 26 20:27 UTC 2006 |
No. It was just a rejoinder to my bud RW, who way back in 76(?) gave
us his insightful analysis as to how the Democrats are poised later
this year to reap the benefits of the anti-corruption congressional
vote.
Now, do I have to rebut VH's very strange statement implying that
corruption only results from "one-party rule," whatever in the world
that's supposed to mean in the U.S.?
|