|
Grex > Agora56 > #115: Bush administration wants to let United Arab Emirates control six U.S. ports | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 154 responses total. |
bru
|
|
response 82 of 154:
| 
Feb 27 20:10 UTC 2006 |
I don't, other than the reports from the government and the news reports I
have seen and read.
Thats why I still don't like this idea, but I am not totally against it
either.
|
richard
|
|
response 83 of 154:
|
Feb 28 01:10 UTC 2006 |
When the bipartisan anti-Dubai deal supporters in the Congress said
that if Bush vetoed their bill to kill the deal, that they would
override it. The funny thing is what the news reports said Bush was
planning to do if there was an override vote-- he was organizing his
staunchest supporters in congress to do a filibuster in the Senate.
Thats right, the same President Bush who wants to do away with the
filibuster, wanted to use it here. Is that hypocritical or what?
|
mcnally
|
|
response 84 of 154:
|
Feb 28 01:24 UTC 2006 |
It's not hypocritical.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 85 of 154:
|
Feb 28 02:08 UTC 2006 |
I wouldn't say it's hypocritical, but it's a bit strange that Bush came
out full-bore in support of the deal, and then admitted/claimed that
he'd only just found out about it via news reports.
Which isn't to say I'm against (or for) this deal--I don't know enough
to give an intelligent opinion on it. The only thing that particularly
worries me (from both a security and economic perspective) is that the
more I hear, the more it sounds as though there was precious little
oversight before approving the deal. But, two thoughts: 1)I keep
hearing, "they won't have anything to do with port security", but
whether true or not, they would (presumably) have access to all sorts of
info bad guys would find extremely valuable, so whomever runs the port
darn well better be trustworthy. 2)I wonder if those who accuse the
deal's opponents of paranoia or racism would feel differently if the new
port boss was, say, Iran or North Korea or Libya.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 86 of 154:
|
Feb 28 03:39 UTC 2006 |
Bush doesn't want to do away with the filibuster, he wants it eliminated
from proceedings involving Federal Judges and Supreme Court nominees.
How is seeking a filibuster on some legislation concerning ports
hypocritical?
|
klg
|
|
response 87 of 154:
|
Feb 28 03:41 UTC 2006 |
ard LIES again -- Richard LIES again -- Richard LIES again -- Richard
LIES
I have never heard President Bush support a ban on the filibuster,
except to say that in cases of advise and consent, judicial nominees
deserve a vote. Your typical Left Wing lies are showing.
gain -- Richard LIES again -- Richard LIES again -- Richard LIES --
Richar
|
richard
|
|
response 88 of 154:
|
Feb 28 17:26 UTC 2006 |
klg is lying again, bush and his people have openly advocated eliminating the
filibuster altogether.
and mcnally, how is it not hypocritical for bush to have suggested use of the
filibuster after having suggested its elimination?
|
klg
|
|
response 89 of 154:
|
Feb 28 18:01 UTC 2006 |
If that is true, then RW ought to have no problem substantiating his
claim.
But he didn't.
|
twenex
|
|
response 90 of 154:
|
Feb 28 18:06 UTC 2006 |
You just contradicted yourself. Learn to speak English. And i say that
condescendingly not as an American-hater, but as a cretin hater.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 91 of 154:
|
Feb 28 18:45 UTC 2006 |
Bush and his minions threatened to put the kibosh on filibusters for
judicial nominations. They claimed they planned to do so *only* for
said nominations, but of course it would be easy enough to use the same
procedure ("nuclear option") for any filibuster. Guess it comes down to
how much one trusts the word of Bush & Frist & Co.
|
richard
|
|
response 92 of 154:
|
Feb 28 19:51 UTC 2006 |
johnnie you can't put the kibosh on filibusters for judicial nominations
unless you kill it altogether. bill frist, the majority leader, made it clear
that he wanted to get rid of the filibuster altogether. as did bush.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 93 of 154:
|
Feb 28 20:16 UTC 2006 |
Of course, the Republican ONLY suggested killing fillibusters because they
are in the majority in Congress. If they weren't they'd be speaking
differently. Sheer hypocrisy.
|
tod
|
|
response 94 of 154:
|
Feb 28 20:28 UTC 2006 |
THey wanted to kill fillibusters cuz they like to kill.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 95 of 154:
|
Feb 28 20:33 UTC 2006 |
I bet C-SPAN ratings would improve dramatically if they replaced it
with a kill-ibuster.. "You can confirm Judge Alito over the Judiciary
Committee Members' dead bodies.. Raaaaarrrrghhh!"
|
klg
|
|
response 96 of 154:
|
Feb 28 20:34 UTC 2006 |
Richard - Were you asleep? The "nuclear option" was to have barred
filibusters for judicial nominations only.
Here is how it was reported in The Hill:
A group of 14 Republicans and Democrats have reached a deal that will
avert the use of the so-called "nuclear option" to end the judicial
filibuster - at least for a time.
|
tod
|
|
response 97 of 154:
|
Feb 28 20:34 UTC 2006 |
GW is actually referring to Cheney's alter-ego "Vito"
|
nharmon
|
|
response 98 of 154:
|
Feb 28 21:10 UTC 2006 |
I think eliminating the filibusters on even judicial nominations is a
bad idea, and if the republicans were not the majority party they would
not be suggesting it.
But the point here is that nobody seems interested in posting an actual
quote where Bush has advocated removing all filibusters. Or did I miss
it?
|
richard
|
|
response 99 of 154:
|
Feb 28 21:32 UTC 2006 |
I wasn't talking about the compromise "nuclear option" they worked out, I'm
talking about what Bush and Frist *actually* wanted to do.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 100 of 154:
|
Feb 28 22:03 UTC 2006 |
But since you're not Bush and Frist, you would have to have come to
the knowledge of their actual intent through something they've said,
no?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 101 of 154:
|
Feb 28 22:55 UTC 2006 |
Bush advocated eliminating filibusters for nominations: "The Senate also
has a duty -- to promptly consider each of these nominations on the Senate
floor, discuss and debate their qualifications and then give them the up
or down vote they deserve." (Bush)
|
johnnie
|
|
response 102 of 154:
|
Mar 1 00:38 UTC 2006 |
(04-20-2005) 05:55 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) -- Senate Majority Leader Bill
Frist pledged Tuesday that any effort by Republicans to ban Democratic
filibusters of President Bush's judicial nominees would not apply to
filibusters on legislation.
"There is no need for change in relation to legislative matters," Frist
said in a statement issued before GOP senators met for their weekly
policy meeting.
(Senate Democratic leader Harry) Reid suggested last week that getting
rid of the legislative filibuster could be Frist's next target if he
wins on the judicial filibuster.
Deputy Majority Leader Mitch McConnell also said Republicans aren't
going to strike the legislative filibuster. "There is no one I know of
on our side who wants to get rid of the legislative filibuster," he said.
But the possibility concerns some conservative groups like the Gun
Owners of America and the National Right to Work Committee, which oppose
a judicial filibuster ban, saying a ban on legislative filibusters might
be next. They say Republicans have used legislative filibuster threats
to stop antigun and pro-union legislation and that weapon is too
important to lose.
But Frist's statement said he "will not act in any way to impact the
rights of colleagues when it comes to legislation" or try to change
Senate rules that "now provide many tools for members, and leaders, to
see legislative ideas brought to an up or down vote on the Senate floor."
|
johnnie
|
|
response 103 of 154:
|
Mar 1 00:39 UTC 2006 |
>C-SPAN ratings would improve dramatically if they replaced it
>with a kill-ibuster..
Yes, they did that on the Simpsons:
Mel Gibson: I vote we impose some serious term limits.
Homer: I second that motion! With a vengeance!
Mel Gibson: All in favor, say die!
|
klg
|
|
response 104 of 154:
|
Mar 1 11:52 UTC 2006 |
Right, NH. Although it is good to know that RW is a psycho, er, I
mean, psychic.
Thus far, reportedly, the Republicans have not used the filibuster to
prevent the Senate from voting on any judicial nominee who had enough
votes for confirmation. In fact, Republicans generally vote in favor
of court nominees (e.g., Ginsberg) who hold views that are anathema to
them because the nominees otherwise qualify in terms of the actual
requirements for the job. It took the Deny-crats to turn the
confirmation process into the equivalent of professional wrestling.
|
jep
|
|
response 105 of 154:
|
Mar 1 14:34 UTC 2006 |
re resp:92: "bill frist, the majority leader, made it clear
that he wanted to get rid of the filibuster altogether. as did bush."
This is another case where richard is posting something untrue as if
it's a fact because it'd be *so GREAT* if it were indeed a fact. It
would be such a powerful argument that richard has overlooked the minor
inconvenience that it is, in fact, not true at all.
|
richard
|
|
response 106 of 154:
|
Mar 1 15:51 UTC 2006 |
jep how can you state it is untrue when you don't know that.
|