Tiger Al 0 Posted May 10, 2005 Author Share Posted May 10, 2005 Al, answer the question.Was Richard Paez, confirmed? One Judge. One. 159285[/snapback] After four years he was. 159288[/snapback] So the people that President Bush has nominated just have not waited long enough. If they wait four years they will be confirmed? 159301[/snapback] I sure hope not. These 10 extremists are bad for America and for freedom. Like I said, Georgie needs to nominate 10 more like the 207 that have been confirmed already and he'll have no trouble getting them through. But, that's too easy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted May 10, 2005 Author Share Posted May 10, 2005 By failing to quote it or link it, yes you did. No, I didn't. This is merely a message board, not a college class or a place one submits papers for peer review. Apologies if you mistook my post, no intent was meant to deceive. If you're simply looking to nit pick, then 159295[/snapback] Don't let it bother you Raptor, their drawers are still balled up over Joe Bidden. 159303[/snapback] Who's "Joe" and what was he bidding on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,429 Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 1) The Republicans Blocked 69? Clinton appointees. 2) The Republicans were the majority in the Senate then too. 3) Going Nuclear will have grave effects later on in the process for a Republican Pres with a Dem Senate. 4) It is only 10 nominees. 5) Anyone who states that Anyone but Brown is unfit for a Judgeship, is just plain ignorant of the facts. Even the Alabama print media say Pryor is fully qualified and should be affirmed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted May 10, 2005 Author Share Posted May 10, 2005 1) The Republicans Blocked 69? Clinton appointees.2) The Republicans were the majority in the Senate then too. 3) Going Nuclear will have grave effects later on in the process for a Republican Pres with a Dem Senate. 4) It is only 10 nominees. 5) Anyone who states that Anyone but Brown is unfit for a Judgeship, is just plain ignorant of the facts. Even the Alabama print media say Pryor is fully qualified and should be affirmed. 159309[/snapback] And the Alabama print media carries this weight with you because...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,429 Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 1) The Republicans Blocked 69? Clinton appointees.2) The Republicans were the majority in the Senate then too. 3) Going Nuclear will have grave effects later on in the process for a Republican Pres with a Dem Senate. 4) It is only 10 nominees. 5) Anyone who states that Anyone but Brown is unfit for a Judgeship, is just plain ignorant of the facts. Even the Alabama print media say Pryor is fully qualified and should be affirmed. 159309[/snapback] And the Alabama print media carries this weight with you because...? 159312[/snapback] They dont, but they spend so much time kissing up to Dem butts that it must mean something that Dem sympathizers finally see the truth about Pryor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted May 10, 2005 Author Share Posted May 10, 2005 1) The Republicans Blocked 69? Clinton appointees.2) The Republicans were the majority in the Senate then too. 3) Going Nuclear will have grave effects later on in the process for a Republican Pres with a Dem Senate. 4) It is only 10 nominees. 5) Anyone who states that Anyone but Brown is unfit for a Judgeship, is just plain ignorant of the facts. Even the Alabama print media say Pryor is fully qualified and should be affirmed. 159309[/snapback] And the Alabama print media carries this weight with you because...? 159312[/snapback] They dont, but they spend so much time kissing up to Dem butts that it must mean something that Dem sympathizers finally see the truth about Pryor. 159317[/snapback] Oh, that's right...the "liberal media." I should've heard the bell ringing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlue72 0 Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 Where do you libbies come up with this "out of the mainstream" garbage???????? The mainstream elected a Republican president, a Republican Senate and a Republican house of representatives! The only ones who are out of the mainstream are the vocal libbies who still can't accept that they've lost the last several elections and are forever determined to force their beliefs and policies on the unwilling American people. GET OVER IT, ALREADY!!! The majority party can do things the minority party cannot, because they have the votes to do so. Changing the senate rules, the Byrd option, not the "nuclear option" as the whining libbies like to call it, is simply the right of a party who has gained the majority as have the Republicans today. If the demoncrats ever again understand the will of the American people enough to have control of both the congress and the white house, I'm sure they won't even consider changing rules and taking fair advantage of their majority...... YEAH, RIGHT. Just like they did when they excercised the Byrd option that they so despise when the Republicans propose it. The fact remains that the demoncrats have abused the constitution more during the time of their majority rule than the Republicans have ever thought about. Can you imagine the whine from the libbies if a strong Republican president proposed packing the court, the Supreme Court, like FDR did when his socialist policies were being ruled, justifiably, unconstitutional by the moderately conservative court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranger12 46 Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 Um...I keep reading the resident liberals use the term "mainstream" where the nominees should be concerned. Seeing how the majority of Americans voted in a conservative President and a conservative Congress, one would think then that the majority of americans would prefer conservative nominees. That would make them out of the "mainstream". Leave it to you liberals to act like you are the majority when America has voted otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,953 Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 Um...I keep reading the resident liberals use the term "mainstream" where the nominees should be concerned. Seeing how the majority of Americans voted in a conservative President and a conservative Congress, one would think then that the majority of americans would prefer conservative nominees. That would make them out of the "mainstream". Leave it to you liberals to act like you are the majority when America has voted otherwise. 159332[/snapback] A "majority" of Americans did not elect a "conservative" Senate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,125 Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 A "majority" of Americans did not elect a "conservative" Senate Curious. As originally planned by the Founders, NO Americans voted for the Senate. The People were to elect the members of the House of Representitives. The States would appoint the Senators. That way, the People would have a voice w/ the Federal Gov't, as would the Gov'ts of each State. Today, the 50 States have no official voice w/ the Federal Gov't. Does that seem right to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,953 Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 A "majority" of Americans did not elect a "conservative" Senate Curious. As originally planned by the Founders, NO Americans voted for the Senate. The People were to elect the members of the House of Representitives. The States would appoint the Senators. That way, the People would have a voice w/ the Federal Gov't, as would the Gov'ts of each State. Today, the 50 States have no official voice w/ the Federal Gov't. Does that seem right to you? 159337[/snapback] Who are "the states", if not the people in the states? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,125 Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 Who are "the states", if not the people in the states? Surely you comprehend the difference in citizens and The People of a State, no? Such as in The People vs..... when ever a state is invovled in a court case. The body of the State reflects the Gov't as a whole, while each of us have our own interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,953 Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 Who are "the states", if not the people in the states? Surely you comprehend the difference in citizens and The People of a State, no? Such as in The People vs..... when ever a state is invovled in a court case. The body of the State reflects the Gov't as a whole, while each of us have our own interest. 159347[/snapback] Surely you comprehend that the people of the state that elect the state government are the same people that elect the state's senators. Your distinction is pretty meaningless for this particular point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted May 11, 2005 Author Share Posted May 11, 2005 Um...I keep reading the resident liberals use the term "mainstream" where the nominees should be concerned. Seeing how the majority of Americans voted in a conservative President and a conservative Congress, one would think then that the majority of americans would prefer conservative nominees. That would make them out of the "mainstream". Leave it to you liberals to act like you are the majority when America has voted otherwise. 159332[/snapback] Unlike you, I don't consider anything beyond my beliefs "out of the mainstream." To me, the "mainstream" includes slightly liberal, centrist and slightly conservative views. Beyond that is, "out of the mainstream," in my book. I consider chaining a person to a post for seven hours in the hot Alabama sun with no water or toilet break to be "out of the mainstream," as I do anyone who defends such actions. I consider seeking the death penalty for the mentally retarded to be "out of the mainstream," as I do anyone who supports such actions. One of these 10 extremists sees nothing wrong with either of these things, so, I consider him to be "out of the mainstream." Of course, if you see nothing wrong with his views then I hope Karma affords you the opportunity to feel his brand of "justice" firsthand. The other 9 hold similarly extreme ideologies. Vote for them for governer, senator or president if you like, but, don't appoint them to a lifetime judgeship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.