When will we wake up?

[Ren]

Okay - so, Bill Clinton had his affair and that got him impeached by the House. That's all it took.

Bush has a laundry list of suspicious things and he's floating by. I understand how partisanship is working in Washington, but where's the public outcry?

Clouds of suspicion: 2000 election kicked it off, then the Iraqi WMD claims, the hidden pages of the 9/11 report protecting the Saudis, the 2004 election hacker/bullying stories, and now the clincher.

There is a report in Britain that shows that this administration doctored evidence so that the Iraq war would be a go. This announcement was nice and close to the end of the search for Iraqi WMD, which never existed. The admin lied to start a war of aggression - which breaks our own laws and international law. So, where is the outcry for consequences for this administration? This war was never about liberating Iraq. That was convenient excuse number 7b on the list of excuses that could resonate with the American public.

When will the public stop being sheep and demand accountability?

[nudeM]

Oh no, not another political issue to fight over. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

[S.M.A.]

I don't want to start any discussions either, but it's probably the fault of a right-wing crackpot insider who thinks everything should be done his way.

Stuart

[Qikdraw]

Blame Project for a New American Century. I do.

Where is the outcry? Well maybe because the media isn't reporting on it, or anything else that might be damaging there is no outcry.

I'm just glad I get my news from foriegn sources about the news. Its far more reliable than Americna news.

Qikdraw

[Trailscout]

Bill Clinton was not impeached for having an affair, but for lying about it to US Congress. It constitutes sexual impropriety because of the employer employee relationship and because it happened in the workplace on "company" (actually taxpayer) time.

There's little to no public outcry about GW Bush because the public has forgiven the administration's tendency to trump up the charges against Iraq. Most of us were convinced that there was plenty of reason to depose Hussein and the Baathists.

WMD were spirited away to Syria and from there, some of them to the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon.

Ren reports some clouds of suspicion, but I believe he is just blowing smoke:
There has been a lot of sour grapes about the 2000 election, centering mostly on hanging chads in Florida and some hapless voters who couldn't figure out how to punch a hole in a sheet of cardboard. Bush won, Gore lost. All agree it was close, but we can't have two presidents, so Bush was chosen.

The Bush administration was too soft with the Saudis, but in view of our heavy dependence on Saudi oil, I can see why they trod lightly around their terrorist problem, even though I disagree with that decision.

I have heard some vague stories about ruffians at a few polling places, but Bush's lead in 2004 was so decisive that it would not affect the outcome. Such charges should be investigated, but it is not a national crisis.

The 1991 Gulf War really never ended. It was a resumption of hostilities from an untenable stalemate. The deepening Oil for Food scandal and massive Iraqi on Iraqi genocide illustrates the need for invasion very well.

There are progressive minds in both major parties that want to give us energy independence so we are not so easily entangled in future battles in the Middle East. For now we must accelerate the power transition to the new Iraqi government and look to other countries in the region where regime change is called for: Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria for instance.

[jon71]

Trailscout is correct on one point, Bush was "chosen" not elected in 2000. There were irregularities in 2004, whether they were extreme enough to alter the outcome will probably never be know. For the lies about Iraq more than 1600 good Americans, thousands of innocent Iraquis (and a handful not innocent) are dead and we went from monumanetal world support after 9-11 to massive acrimony and distrust. The man should be impeached for treason and preferably 1600 (or more) counts of first degree murder. btw Clinton split hairs a lot but never lied under oath. It was so obvious even a few republicans had to admit that.

[Trailscout]

Jon,

I urge you to go to Iraq and meet those innocent Iraqi insurgents you talk about.

Seriously, I hope you will not take my advise literally and wind up as the next dead Western infidel.

I did not have sex with that woman (depending on what the meaning of the word "is" is. Huh? Did slick Willy really say that? It's all on tape for posterity! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[naturush]

This country is becoming WAY to concervative. That's bad.
My wife is very liberal, and I hear of conspiracy theories all the time. Bush is simply to STUPID to mastermind a conspiracy, in my opinion. Public outcry...it needs to happen, however most liberals I know have their collective heads buried in sand for the next three and a half years.
BTW, I saw a bumper sticker the other day that said: Sorry world 50% of us tried, sincerely citizens of the U.S.

[jon71]

The "I did not have sex with that woman" quote was a lie but not under oath. That is why I phrased it that way. Of the thousands we have killed only a small handful were insurgents. The VAST majority were "collateral damage". Even in Abu Grahib only a token number of the people we tortured/killed were terrorists. Most had either committed misdemeanors or were innocent altogether. Naturush, yes Bush is incredibly stupid but remember he has Cheney and Rove to think for him.

[Qikdraw]

Originally posted by Trailscout:
I urge you to go to Iraq and meet those innocent Iraqi insurgents you talk about.


I hope you are not saying that the majority of Iraqis are doing these things. Cause if you are then that is a very ignorant statement. You might as well say that all christians want to kill abortion doctors.

There are radical islamists who go against the teachings of the Quran, there are terrorists who view Iraq as a target rich environment, (both of those are majorily non-Iraqi) and then you have Iraqis who are fed up with the occupation of their country. They are sick of America screwing up, (the massive corruption for one) and they are sick of the criminals the US has put into power. Even after the 'elections' its the same people, just put into different positions.

I would seriously suggest reading Baghdad Burning (http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/) from beginning to end. (on teh right hand side there is an 'archives' section. She's an Iraqi girl who ives in Baghdad, and she's been writing her blog since August 2003. There is also a book out on her blogs for the first year. Journalists and Americans in Iraq use her blog to see what Iraqis are thinking about the situations. She's an excellent read and I highly recommend her site.

Turning Tables (http://turningtables.blogspot.com/) is another site that is very good. From an American soldier that was in Iraq. The blog cuts off at 10/15/2004. Read from teh bottom up.

One common mistake when people think of Iraq is that they just don't realise how educated Iraqis are. They had very good universities and schools. These are not an ignorant people, they know when they are getting the shaft, and this is something they are not happy with. When an Iraqi company says that a bridge can be rebuilt for 300,000 with an Iraqi company, and with materials at hand, and then an American company comes along and says it'll cost 50,000,000, they know something is wrong.

Anyway, my internet goes down today. For how long I am not sure, as long as it takes them to reconnect it.

Trailscout, sorry to put in an answer to you, and then take off, but I wanted to get that in before my net went down. Have a good one, and I'll be back later on to continue a discussion if its still going on. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Qikdraw

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by Ren:
Okay - so, Bill Clinton had his affair and that got him impeached by the House. That's all it took.<span class="ev_code_BLUE">Thanks to the perverted ideals and values of Bush and the neo-cons, sex is the evil but human life is valueless. Sure, they claim to care about human life when it comes to abortion, euthenasia, and the removal of feeding tubes but that is all smoke and mirrors. With over 100,000 Iraqi women and children dead, and the losses to our troops the bumper sticker that I saw yesterday says it all</span><span class="ev_code_RED">"Clinton may have lied--but nobody died."</span>



There is a report in Britain that shows that this administration doctored evidence so that the Iraq war would be a go. This announcement was nice and close to the end of the search for Iraqi WMD, which never existed. The admin lied to start a war of aggression - which breaks our own laws and international law. So, where is the outcry for consequences for this administration? <span class="ev_code_BLUE">The right claims that we have a liberal bias in the media, yet our media has not run with this story which coincidentally was run by one of the UK's most conservative newspapers.</span>

This war was never about liberating Iraq. That was convenient excuse number 7b on the list of excuses that could resonate with the American public.<span class="ev_code_BLUE">Bush & Co. keep floating excuses for why they invaded Iraq. Everytime an excuse gets shot down they float another one hoping eventually they will find one that goes uncontested by the truth.</span>

When will the public stop being sheep and demand accountability? <span class="ev_code_BLUE">Sorry, but accountability is not part of Bush's world. Just look at what they did to decimate the Ethics committee so that buddy Tom DeLay doesn't have to face the mounting charges against him.</span>

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by Trailscout:

Ren reports some clouds of suspicion, but I believe he is just blowing smoke:<span class="ev_code_BLUE">The reported the minutes of a meeting; that is not exactly just blowing smoke!</span>


I have heard some vague stories about ruffians at a few polling places, but Bush's lead in 2004 was so decisive that it would not affect the outcome. Such charges should be investigated, but it is not a national crisis.<span class="ev_code_BLUE">You might want to look at what happend in Ohio. Had all of the votes been counted, and all of the voters in Ohio had been allowed to vote then Bush would have been out of office. The election was anything but decisive-more like divisive.</span>


There are progressive minds in both major parties that want to give us energy independence so we are not so easily entangled in future battles in the Middle East. <span class="ev_code_BLUE">So now you are admitting that the war was over oil?</span>

For now we must accelerate the power transition to the new Iraqi government and look to other countries in the region where regime change is called for: Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria for instance. <span class="ev_code_BLUE">How nice! The civil war in Iraq is just starting and you are looking for us to invade other nations. If Bush/Cheney, Halliburton & Co invade any other countries I wouldn't be surprised if there is a civil war in this country. You can only fool the population for so long. Plus, there is nobody left to fight for the U.S. The armed forces can't attract enough recruits to sustain the current required level and they have conscripted those who's time of service is up.</span>

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by NudeTopher
. <span class="ev_code_BLUE">How nice! The civil war in Iraq is just starting and you are looking for us to invade other nations. If Bush/Cheney, Halliburton & Co invade any other countries I wouldn't be surprised if there is a civil war in this country. You can only fool the population for so long. Plus, there is nobody left to fight for the U.S. The armed forces can't attract enough recruits to sustain the current required level and they have conscripted those who's time of service is up.</span>[/QUOTE]

Civil war? The Left has been predicting that for TWO years without it materializing. That was up there with predictions that Sadaam would not be caught, that US could not set up an interim gov't, that elections could not be held and that the Iraqis would never be able to hammer out a gov't of Shia's , Sunnis and Kurds.

[Trailscout]

Originally posted by Qikdraw:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
I urge you to go to Iraq and meet those innocent Iraqi insurgents you talk about.


I hope you are not saying that the majority of Iraqis are doing these things. Cause if you are then that is a very ignorant statement. You might as well say that all christians want to kill abortion doctors.

There are radical islamists who go against the teachings of the Quran, there are terrorists who view Iraq as a target rich environment, (both of those are majorily non-Iraqi) and then you have Iraqis who are fed up with the occupation of their country.
Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Qik,

I am suggesting that the majority of insurgents are violent. True, a sizeable number of them are not Iraqis, but are Wahabi extremists from Saudi Arabia. I invite you to produce some statistics on what percentage are native Iraqi. Whatever the number, there are native Iraqi insurgents, and they are mostly Sunnis who are bitter about losing control to the Shiite majority and have no scruples about blowing up school children, kidnapping and murdering foreign day laborers, etc. Pretty nasty bunch of guys!

[Trailscout]

Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):
There are progressive minds in both major parties that want to give us energy independence so we are not so easily entangled in future battles in the Middle East. <span class="ev_code_BLUE">So now you are admitting that the war was over oil?</span>


Not over Iraqi oil, we didn't get much oil from Iraq before the war, not much now. The price of oil is double what it was before the war.

The main reason we went there was due to continuing instability in the region, which was a threat to national security. We could withstand the loss of Iraqi oil, but could not tolerate Sadaam's dream of a revived Babylonian empire that would have occupied Saudi Arabia, maybe even Israel. Sadaam, if unchecked would have controlled enough of the world's oil supply to put a severe squeeze on Europe and Japan, and the US economy would be greatly impacted, but not to the same extent. But due to our global economy, a crippled Europe and Japan is also bad for the USA.

I am suggesting that weaning ourselves from oil, especially foreign oil would reduce the strategic importance of interuptions in the oil supply from the Middle East. Again, Europe and Japan are even more vulnerable to supply disruptions in that region than the USA and world peace is predicated on ALL developed nations turning to renewable energy sources.

[hm0504]

Trailscout wrote:
...
WMD were spirited away to Syria and from there, some of them to the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon.
...

The last word from the U.S. Government is that Iraq had no unaccounted WMD; not that they were spirited away to Syria or Lebanon or Timbuktu.

[hm0504]

Originally posted by jon71:
The "I did not have sex with that woman" quote was a lie but not under oath. That is why I phrased it that way. ...

Actually, for a technical legal perspective, Bil Clinton did not lie because what he said was "...I did not have sexual relations with that woman..."; "sexual relations" is legally defined as sexual intercourse, nor oral sex.

[hm0504]

Originally posted by Trailscout:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Qikdraw:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
I urge you to go to Iraq and meet those innocent Iraqi insurgents you talk about.


I hope you are not saying that the majority of Iraqis are doing these things. Cause if you are then that is a very ignorant statement. You might as well say that all christians want to kill abortion doctors.

There are radical islamists who go against the teachings of the Quran, there are terrorists who view Iraq as a target rich environment, (both of those are majorily non-Iraqi) and then you have Iraqis who are fed up with the occupation of their country.
Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Qik,

I am suggesting that the majority of insurgents are violent. True, a sizeable number of them are not Iraqis, but are Wahabi extremists from Saudi Arabia. I invite you to produce some statistics on what percentage are native Iraqi. Whatever the number, there are native Iraqi insurgents, and they are mostly Sunnis who are bitter about losing control to the Shiite majority and have no scruples about blowing up school children, kidnapping and murdering foreign day laborers, etc. Pretty nasty bunch of guys! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Approximately upwards of 90% of the insurgents are Iraqi as estimated by the U.S. military and independent sources:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_insurgency.htm

KirkOntario wrote:

Civil war? The Left has been predicting that for TWO years without it materializing.

Hard to know where to begin on this one but in my view Iraq has had a civil war for decades in either hot or cold form. The Sunni/Shia rift goes back hundreds of years.

I certainly think that a majority of Iraqis want a democratic, peaceful nation. Unfortunately, there are also a large minority of religious/ethnic extremists (on almost all sides) who see hundreds of years of wrongs that need to be righted.

[naturush]

Jon71, don't remind me! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

[Trailscout]

Not an honest answer to be sure. Too bad that he feels free to lie to the American people because he was not under oath. I don't want anyone in that family in the White House.

The notion that sex is not sex is the most preposterous thing I have ever heard.

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudeTopher
. <span class="ev_code_BLUE">How nice! The civil war in Iraq is just starting and you are looking for us to invade other nations. If Bush/Cheney, Halliburton & Co invade any other countries I wouldn't be surprised if there is a civil war in this country. You can only fool the population for so long. Plus, there is nobody left to fight for the U.S. The armed forces can't attract enough recruits to sustain the current required level and they have conscripted those who's time of service is up.</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Civil war? The Left has been predicting that for TWO years without it materializing. That was up there with predictions that Sadaam would not be caught, that US could not set up an interim gov't, that elections could not be held and that the Iraqis would never be able to hammer out a gov't of Shia's , Sunnis and Kurds.[/QUOTE]<span class="ev_code_RED">Based upon the daily casualties, deaths, bombings and the amount of Iraqi's that refuse to recognize this government I'd say that your definition of success is a bit far from reality.</span>

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by Trailscout:
Not an honest answer to be sure. Too bad that he feels free to lie to the American people because he was not under oath. I don't want anyone in that family in the White House.

The notion that sex is not sex is the most preposterous thing I have ever heard.

But the lies and immoral actions of Bush don't seem to bother you. You give no creedence to Ministers of Blair's gov't that were at a meeting where the US was seeking reasons to invade Iraq well before the timetable laid out by Bush. So far, 88 of our Congressman have sent a letter to Bush asking for an explaination of this. They have waited over 11 days so far and Bush has not responded.

Omission is not different then commission. Bush can't answer because he would be admitting his lies to the American people.

[KetchumMaine]

I just want to thank ALL of the politicians in Washington for the Patriot Act which essentially repealled major chunks of the Constitution.

[hm0504]

Originally posted by KetchumMaine:
I just want to thank ALL of the politicians in Washington for the Patriot Act which essentially repealled major chunks of the Constitution.

And isn't it high time the Alien and Sedition Acts [1] came back into force? I am just shocked that the press is allowed to "oppose any measure ... of the government". Oh, how I long for the day when Republicans were republican and Democrats were Democratic-Republicans.

[1] http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/ah_002600_alienandsedi.htm

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by KetchumMaine:
I just want to thank ALL of the politicians in Washington for the Patriot Act which essentially repealled major chunks of the Constitution.

As long as you are thanking them, you might as well thank them in advance for removing the fillibuster. These Republicans are so short-sighted that they don't realize that when the day comes that they are in the minority they will no longer have the same protections they once enjoyed. Between the Patriot Act and Bush's assault on the judical branch Congress better start packing...pretty soon he will try disbanding the legistlative branch as well.

Welcome to the theocratic monarchy of King George Jr.

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by hm0504:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by KetchumMaine:
I just want to thank ALL of the politicians in Washington for the Patriot Act which essentially repealled major chunks of the Constitution.

And isn't it high time the Alien and Sedition Acts [1] came back into force? I am just shocked that the press is allowed to "oppose any measure ... of the government". Oh, how I long for the day when Republicans were republican and Democrats were Democratic-Republicans.
------------------------------------------------

Errr. Ummmm. Since King George is so cozy with the pharmaceutical industry this was renamed THE SEDATION ACT. He put the country to sleep while our freedoms were being eroded. Don't you recall his "You are either with me or against me speech"? It ranks right up there with the one of him on the aircraft carrier declearing victory in Iraq.

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by NudeTopher <span class="ev_code_RED">Based upon the daily casualties, deaths, bombings and the amount of Iraqi's that refuse to recognize this government I'd say that your definition of success is a bit far from reality.</span>

The issue was your suggestion that a 'civil war' is 'starting' in Iraq. That has not happened. It could I suppose but 2 years after the invasion it has not started as yet.

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by KetchumMaine:
I just want to thank ALL of the politicians in Washington for the Patriot Act which essentially repealled major chunks of the Constitution.

Every constitution makes place for occasions of national emergency when civil rights need to be limited for a time. Americans tend to be freedom loving and chaffe under the least restrictions on their rights so the Patriot Act is a lot more benign than it is made out to be. Here in 1970 we implemented the War Measures Act to round up and detain separatist militants who had abducted a Quebec Cabinet minister. Pierre Trudeau, a great defender of freedom and democracy managed to crush the FLQ at the outset rather than let them get entrenched in Canadian society. We have not domestic terrorism since.

[hm0504]

"It's just political rhetoric to say we are not in a civil war. We've been in a civil war for a long time," said Pat Lang, the former top Middle East intelligence official at the Pentagon.

Other experts said Iraq is on the verge of a full-scale civil war with civilians on both sides being slaughtered. Incidents in the past two weeks south of Baghdad, with apparently retaliatory killings of Sunni and Shia civilians, point in that direction, they say.


More at:
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-woiraq0512,0,4630319.story?coll=ny-top-headlines

[Naturist Mark]

Originally posted by NudeTopher Errr. Ummmm. Since King George is so cozy with the pharmaceutical industry this was renamed THE SEDATION ACT.

The actual title of the Bush plan to sedate America is "The New Freedom Initiative". Starting with schoolchildren the population of the US will be screened for mental illness by pharmaceutical companies and will be prescribed any "necessary" medication. It will mandatory.

Now Bush wants to test every American for mental illness--including you! (http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=830)
Bush To Impose Psychiatric Drug Regime (http://tinyurl.com/6g6me)
New Freedom Initiative Links (http://tinyurl.com/9z6pe)

-Mark

[hm0504]

Mark, could you summarize how the No Child Left Unmedicated policy will be funded; that is, who pays for the kid's drugs.

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:

The actual title of the Bush plan to sedate America is "The New Freedom Initiative". Starting with schoolchildren the population of the US will be screened for mental illness by pharmaceutical companies and will be prescribed any "necessary" medication. It will mandatory.

[/URL]

-Mark

Mark, pharmaceutical companies do not screen people for mental illness. One would think that would be obvious.

[Naturist Mark]

Originally posted by KirkOntario:

Mark, pharmaceutical companies do not screen people for mental illness. One would think that would be obvious.

You didn't read the links I provided.

The New Freedom Initiative is based on the Texas Medication Algorithm Project. The screening is done by a checklist formulated by the pharmaceutical companies who funded the Texas plan (TMAP), not by actual psychiatric examinations by professional mental health experts.

The medication guidelines for the TMAP were established by an "expert consensus" based on the opinions of prescribers, rather than clinical studies. Nearly all of the major drug companies helped fund the scheme, including Eli Lilly, Janssen Pharmaceutica, Johnson & Johnson, Astrazeneca, Novartis, Janssen-Ortho-McNeil, GlaxoSmithKline, Abbott, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Wyeth-Ayerst and Forrest Laboratories.

The drugs recommended by the "experts" for "first line treatment,” were the new drugs manufactured by the same companies that funded the scheme and included, Zyprexa, Paxil, Zoloft, Allerall, Risperdal, Seroqual, Depakote, Pozac, Celexa, Wellbutron, Zyban, Remeron, Serzone, Effexor, and Buspar.

Congress has appropriated $20 million for the first phase of the initiative.

-Mark

[KirkOntario]

Mark regardless of who designs a test medical professional will be administering it. This is really a new conspiracy theory isn't it?

[Naturist Mark]

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Mark regardless of who designs a test medical professional will be administering it. This is really a new conspiracy theory isn't it?

Did you read any of the links? The questionaires are not medical professionals, they are checklists, administered by whom? In Texas, Pennsylvania and Illinois (who developed state programs based on TMAP) the checklists were 'administered' by State employees (social workers?). One hopes that actual mental health professionals are brought into the process at some point, but it is unclear where. Presumedly the actual prescriptions have to be written by a physician.

The New Freedom Initiative does exist outside the fevered imaginations of conspiracy theorists: Achieving the Promise: Transforming Mental Health Care in America (http://www.mentalhealthcommission.gov/reports/Finalreport/FullReport.htm)

-Mark

[NudeTopher]

<span class="ev_code_RED">Here is an intersting quote on Social Security from a past Republican president. </span>


President Eisenhower's thoughts on Texan millionaires who want to abolish Social Security. (http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/ike.asp)

[jon71]

to hm0504 who asked who funds "no child left behind". The simple answer is nobody. It is an unfunded mandate. Eventually individual states will cut other spending and/or raise taxes to pay for it.

[Trailscout]

Jon,
In the old days we didn't need a bunch of educated kids. The idea was to teach them to read and write, then send them out into the fields to hoe corn and chop cotton, perhaps work at some textile mill. Education was for an elite few who ran our state and our larger businesses.
As more industry came here and with it jobs requiring technical skills, we became a colony of the North. Yankees moved down here to run our manufacturing plants and man our offices because so few of the local boys had the skills to do so.

We beefed up the curriculum, but it was too little too late. The boards of education continued to think of us kids as Future Farmers of America or as mill hands or delivery drivers. And just so no one misunderstands, I applaud all honest work. I just don't want to see our state in a position that we have to import our managers and technicians because don't produce enough homegrown ones.

I would prefer a funded mandate, but at least an unfunded mandate will build a fire under the sleeping old codgers at the local school board.

[Trailscout]

Wait a minute, when Republicans work for judges that believe in rule of law rather than judicial fiat, it is called "assault on the judicial branch". When Democrats filibuster to block the appointment of fair judges trusted by both major parties, the legal system is weakened and justice is delayed (therefore denied). This sounds like Democratic hegemony to me.

Keep in mind that there are Democrats in the anti-filibuster camp and a few Republicans in the pro-filibuster camp.
The long-term good of America demands that we abolish the judicial filibuster.

[jon71]

The filibuster is an important rule that keeps America free. Without it balance of power is tragically out of whack, maybe destroyed forever. NO Democrat supports ending the rule and hopefully enough republicans see it as the un-American fiasco in the making that it is that it won't ever pass (it will be close). Far too many wacky right extremist judges have passed as it is. If the filibuster is removed I hope the Democrats can essentially close down the senate for two years.

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by jon71:
The filibuster is an important rule that keeps America free. Without it balance of power is tragically out of whack, maybe destroyed forever. NO Democrat supports ending the rule and hopefully enough republicans see it as the un-American fiasco in the making that it is that it won't ever pass (it will be close). Far too many wacky right extremist judges have passed as it is. If the filibuster is removed I hope the Democrats can essentially close down the senate for two years.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/georgewill/gw20050320.shtml

Agreed but it is one of many things that keeps America free and many democratic countries function without the filibuster. Note: the Republcians are not seeking to end filibusters per se but just on nominees.

And oh, the democrats when they dominated the House in the 1970s were all for ending it:just ask Ted Kennedy or "Sheets" Byrd.

[Trailscout]

Jon, most of those judges are moderate. The only reason they are being opposed is because they are Republican appointees.
Meanwhile, I think you owe an apology to all the people for whom justice is denied because there was no judge to hear their case.

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by Trailscout:
Wait a minute, when Republicans work for judges that believe in rule of law rather than judicial fiat, it is called "assault on the judicial branch". When Democrats filibuster to block the appointment of fair judges trusted by both major parties, the legal system is weakened and justice is delayed (therefore denied). This sounds like Democratic hegemony to me.

Keep in mind that there are Democrats in the anti-filibuster camp and a few Republicans in the pro-filibuster camp.
The long-term good of America demands that we abolish the judicial filibuster.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not quite the exact reality here TS. The Republicans have no problems with what you call "activist judges" when they rule in their favor. Some of the very judges who's judgement's the Republican's don't like are actually Republican apointees--the Conservative Republicans object to the outcome based upon merits of the case and wish to take over the court system as they have the Congress and White House.

When you do an analysis of which Republican's are actually for changing the rules to do away with fillibustering you see two major groups against the fillibuster (1) new members of the Senate that have only been in office during a conservative Republican majority and (2) those that have other agendas. Who might have a different agenda? Bill Frisk for one. He needs to show the conservative voters what he did for them as he begins his presidential campaign. The older Senators that served the Republican party during their minority years knows what it feels like to be in the minority camp, they know that the fillibuster is there to prevent the majority from steamrolling candidates through confirmations. These senior's of the Republican party don't want the fillibuster to go away because they will loose the right to use it once they become a minority party again. Since the new senators have never been a part of the minority party they don't see how short-sighted this proposal is and how it may hurt them in the long run.

You are totally wrong; American's long term health is dependent upon the fillibuster so that the minority will always have a voice and that the majority party must bring reasonable and qualified candidates to the plate.

<span class="ev_code_RED">What nobody is mentioning, is that this is a diversionary tactic. Bush, Frist & Co. would rather have a battle over the process then over the individual candidates to whom the minority party is opposing. Take a good, fair look at some of these candidates..they are rife with ethical lapses and off the wall, out of the mainstream opinions. Frist doesn't want you to look at the candidates, just the process. Yet, when he was in the minority party he threatend fillbusters. It's just politics. He doesn't believe that what is good for the goose is good for the gander.</span>

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by Trailscout:
Jon, most of those judges are moderate. The only reason they are being opposed is because they are Republican appointees.


<span class="ev_code_BLUE">Once again, your facts are lacking. Did you forget that Bush had a greater percentage of his judges approved and appointed then Clinton or Reagon or any other president in recent history? The Democrats have legitimate concerns about the qualifications of those judges that they have threatend to fillibuster. Personally, I would have fillibustered Bolton for the UN. I can't imagine nominating for an ambassador somebody that has said that the UN shouldn't exist and who doesn't believe in international law. If we go to the table with that type of attitude, what type of cooperation do you expect that we will get? If we can flout violations of international law how can we demand others follows those international laws and treaties that we favor?</span>

[Trailscout]

Chris,
Bolton is not a judge. I don't want him in the UN because he was an SOB to his staff. I actually applaud his nationalism, but not to the extent that we ignore treaties we have signed. I am leery of giving carte blanche approval to all international law. It invites people we have not elected to be judge jury and executioner over us. No thanks!

I insist on distinguishing judicial filibusters from legislative. Congress has no right to delay vote on judges. The need of the people for due process outweighs any benefit from delay of the vote.

Speaking of vote, minority parties do have a say-so. They get it by negotiating votes with majority Congressmen alligned with interest groups. I.E. "If you vote this way, I'll vote your way on something else".

A simple majority vote on judicial nominations is the right thing to do, but failing that, at least a super-majority would be preferable than keeping an appointee (and more importantly, the public) waiting for years for justice to be served.

[Tara]

To answer Ren's original question, one way I cope with the frustrating state of the nation is by reading alternative press as much as possible (Utne is a great not-all-political magazine to start with)... it allows you to see that there are plenty of others who think like you and are working for change. I'd venture to say alot of people in this coutry ARE awake and they are outraged.



If you listen to a lot of conservatives they’ll tell you that the difference between them and us is that conservatives love America and liberals hate America; that we blame America first; that we are suspicious of patriotism and always think our country’s in the wrong... that we liberals “train our children to criticize America, not celebrate it.” They don’t get it. We love America just as much as they do but in a different way. You see, they love America the way a 4-year-old loves her mommy. Liberals love America like grown-ups. To a 4-year-old, everything mommy does is wonderful and anyone who criticizes mommy is bad! Grown-up love means actually understanding what you love; taking the good with the bad and helping your loved one grow. Love takes attention and work and is the best thing in the world. ~Al Franken

[hm0504]

Article on the weakening U.S. military...

Staying What Course?, Paul Krugman, New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/16/opinion/16krugman.html

[Trailscout]

Tara,

Conservatism and Liberalism come in so many flavors. I know that space doesn't permit a full treatment, but let's take a quick look:
Bush and many of his ilk are in the camp of the multinational capitalists. There is a strange dissonance in their "patriotism". It is all flag-waving, but when it comes to protecting our jobs and national sovereignty, the love isn't there.

Some liberals of the old socialist school want to erase all national borders too. In matters of environmental defense and stopping genocide, I am in favor of international agreements, etc., but I am very leery of yielding national sovereignty in domestic issues, particularly as they concern our personal liberties. If we elect this international elite, we can expect abuse (as evidenced by the oil for food scandal and more recent problems with the UN in Africa).

Utne often features the writings of Wendell Berry, a man far more articulate than I in advocating the rule of community. Here in the South we have been colonized by Yankee Imperialists for generations, particularly in our rural areas. We are naturally suspicious of remote aloof governments doing things paternalistically in our best interest, but they always seem to impoverish our land and us.

[jon71]

No one has been denied justice because of a lack of a judge, It only affects scheduling slightly. Also the only judges filibustered are the MOST EXTREME CONSERVATIVE there are. The claim they are moderate is absurd. Too many conservatives have been confirmed, these are the worst of the worst. Also Democrats not only have the right to filibuster it is their responsibilty to oppose these wacky right nut jobs.

[Buff Man in MI]

Wow, Tara, I liked the Al Franken quote that you posted very much. I agree with that analogy, that pretty much sums up the difference between the two to me.

[Trailscout]

Jon, being conservative should not preclude an honest judge from being able to serve the public. You know that!

No one has the right to filibuster against a judge they don't want, the only honorable thing to do is vote against him or her.

[jon71]

There is not only a right but a responsibility to filibuster these judges. The claim that there "must" be an up or down vote is a fairy tale, we have not practiced that in all of American history. Furthermore being extremely conservative does preclude someone from serving America well.

[P.J.]

Great question.

Too bad there isn't a simple answer.

I'm sick of the way that the Democrats have abused their right to filibuster.

If the presidential nominees are not qualified, I would rather see them voted out.

Lately, many of the Democrats have embraced the likes of Michael Moore and Chappaquiddick Ted Kennedy, which is great way of getting the Republicans elected!

When will they learn the lessons of the predecessors, such as Pennsylvania's late Governor Bob Casey or the late great President Harry S Truman?

[P.J.]

Originally posted by jon71:
No one has been denied justice because of a lack of a judge, It only affects scheduling slightly. Also the only judges filibustered are the MOST EXTREME CONSERVATIVE there are. The claim they are moderate is absurd. Too many conservatives have been confirmed, these are the worst of the worst. Also Democrats not only have the right to filibuster it is their responsibilty to oppose these wacky right nut jobs.


For someone who professes to be a Christian, I don't see how you can stoop to refering to the recent Presidential appointees as "wacky right nut jobs."
That shows an uninformed, hateful and unacceptable attitude.
Despite some of your posts, such as one post that specifically branded me as a "bigot," I would expect a committed Christian to take a more middle of the road stand instead of taking the side of the extreme left, and insulting those who disagree.

[jon71]

There are Christians who are conservative, moderate, liberal, and in my case very Liberal. Just like we are tall, short, black, white, gay, straight, etc., etc, ad infinitum.

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by Trailscout:
Chris,
Bolton is not a judge.<span class="ev_code_BLUE">Obviously he is not a judical candidate. I was using him as an example of a poor, if not dangerous, candidate put forth by the White House. Not of the White House's candidates are qualified, or suited, for the positions the White House envisions. </span>

I am leery of giving carte blanche approval to all international law. <span class="ev_code_BLUE">We propose and conset to international law through treaties and UN policy. If we don't abide by the treaties and agreements to which we have signed then we have no right and no standing to demand others to live up to treaties and international laws that we wish enforced i.e. the weapons inspections in Iraq.</span>It invites people we have not elected to be judge jury and executioner over us. No thanks!<span class="ev_code_BLUE">Not living up to international treaties would put as at odds with the rest of the world and probably put us into constant wars. The right's distate and fear for international rules is both irrational and indicitave of "not being able to play well with others!"</span>

I insist on distinguishing judicial filibusters from legislative. Congress has no right to delay vote on judges. The need of the people for due process outweighs any benefit from delay of the vote.
<span class="ev_code_BLUE">Why? That not only wasn't the intent of the founding fathers, it gives the ruling party unchecked power. When the White House and Congress are of the same party it is the right of the minority party to fillibuster. Without the minority party being able to fillibuster judicial nomination as needed, the executive branch has 100% control of the judiciary. The foundiing fathers did not want the White House to have absolute control of all three branches of the gov't.</span>
Speaking of vote, minority parties do have a say-so. They get it by negotiating votes with majority Congressmen alligned with interest groups. I.E. "If you vote this way, I'll vote your way on something else".<span class="ev_code_BLUE">The current situation proves this to be false. Bush and Frisk have been offering a "take it or leave it" approach to flex their political mite for a varitey of reasons. Every pundit on both sides has concluded that the Republicans has not negotiated in good faith.</span>

A simple majority vote on judicial nominations is the right thing to do,<span class="ev_code_RED">Sorry, one party rule regardless of the party is just wrong! You would be arguing differently if your party was back in the minority since then they would have no voice in judicial nominations.</span> but failing that, at least a super-majority would be preferable than keeping an appointee (and more importantly, the public) waiting for years for justice to be served. <span class="ev_code_BLUE">The courts are clogged and bogged down for a varity of reasons and the amount of sitting judges is not the primary reason.</span>

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by Trailscout:
Tara,

Conservatism and Liberalism come in so many flavors. I know that space doesn't permit a full treatment, but let's take a quick look:
Bush and many of his ilk are in the camp of the multinational capitalists. There is a strange dissonance in their "patriotism". It is all flag-waving, but when it comes to protecting our jobs and national sovereignty, the love isn't there.

Some liberals of the old socialist school want to erase all national borders too. In matters of environmental defense and stopping genocide, I am in favor of international agreements, etc., but I am very leery of yielding national sovereignty in domestic issues, particularly as they concern our personal liberties. If we elect this international elite, we can expect abuse (as evidenced by the oil for food scandal and more recent problems with the UN in Africa).

Utne often features the writings of Wendell Berry, a man far more articulate than I in advocating the rule of community. Here in the South we have been colonized by Yankee Imperialists for generations, particularly in our rural areas. We are naturally suspicious of remote aloof governments doing things paternalistically in our best interest, but they always seem to impoverish our land and us.
-----------------------------------------------
TS, I'm glad that you see that Bush's policies are frequently all sizzle and no bacon. They implore words that appeal to the right but offer no substance. Additionally, your post best describes the argument against liberterians who want no control over corporate interests.

However, Bush is no friend to controlling corporate interests. He wants less regulation, less control and could not care less about average Americans, their economics, or our environment.

Bush, even before his first term, has wanted to strip the SEC of their regulatory strength. Yet, he wants to dismantle Social Security and give it to Wall Street while Wall Street has less oversights. Just imagine when the entire nation has their retirement invested in a darling of Wall Street like Enron. No doubt he would give Ken Lay a Presidential Metal of Freedom.

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by P.J.:


I'm sick of the way that the Democrats have abused their right to filibuster. If the presidential nominees are not qualified, I would rather see them voted out.
------------------------------------------------
PJ, don't you understand that when one party has control of the White House and the Hill that this is an impossibility. It has nothing to do with Republicans v. Democrats-DO THE SIMPLE MATH. When one party controls both the executive and legislative branches, without the right to fillibuster, candidates without merit won't be denied appointment. The math doesn't allow the checks and balances that you yearn for.

If it wasn't so important, this would be laughable. You state that you don't approve of fillibuster and I believe you. However, I did a search and somehow I can't seem to find any posts stating how you despised fillibustering back when it was Bill Frist who wanted to use it when his party was the one in the minority.

No doubt you only hate the fillibuster when your party is in control and have no problem with it when your party is in the majority. Eliminate the fillibuster now and you will be screaming for it's reinstatement the next time your pary is in the minority. You are being short sighted!

[Trailscout]

Democratic U.S. Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska is showing a lot more good judgement than many here. He is on a committee that is negotiating a compromise in matters of judicial appointment congressional voting. In this Democratic Senator's own words, the appointees should be voted on without filibuster, except for the most unusual circumstance.

[Trailscout]

Chris, Bill Clinton was as big a NAFTA advocate as GW Bush is. Just goes to show that the pork barrel is found in both parties.

I am not a Republican by the way. I am a Dixiecrat. I am not a yellow dog Democrat, however. I am proud to walk in the footsteps of Zell Miller when the need arises.

[MJ_KC]

I wanted Bush to win both times, so I have no problem with the election results.

WMD was just one of many reasons why the administration felt that we needed to go to war again with Iraq. There were plenty of other countries who also got the WMD issue wrong.

Personally, I wish that Clinton had gone back in and finished the job that Bush Sr. started.

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by Trailscout:
Chris, Bill Clinton was as big a NAFTA advocate as GW Bush is. Just goes to show that the pork barrel is found in both parties.

I am not a Republican by the way. I am a Dixiecrat. I am not a yellow dog Democrat, however. I am proud to walk in the footsteps of Zell Miller when the need arises.
------------------------------------------------
My comments didn't mention, nor specifically refer to NAFTA.

I still find it hysterical that Frisk would rather threaten a nuclear option (which even though the Republican party coined the term their latest talking point memo forfids Republicans from using the term) then deal with the reasons a handful of the nominees are unfit for the bench. Of course there is a meglamanic in the White House that won't accept less then 100% of his nominees being appointed. Most, if not all presidents, have a handful of nominees that are rejected. That is just not good enough for George...he's an all or nothing kind of guy. If the nuclear option doesn't fly (and from the polls Americans don't want it) then no doubt he will charge the Dems with sedition for not backing him 100%. I wonder if his belligerence is a result of his being a dry-drunk...he certainly fits the scenario.

[Ren]

For all this talk about Democrats "abusing" filibusters, I want to point out the fallacy of assigning blame to them. Can anyone with an honest bone in his or her body tell me which Republican is going to stray from the party line here on the judicial nominees?

Also, the rule of law that the Republicans are trying to shirk isn't just the filibuster. They also want a simple majority. Why? Because they don't have the numbers in the Senate to actually confirm these even if it goes to an up-and-down vote.

They're not trying to work within a scope of gentility as they've been painted. They want their own way or no way and like all bullies, they will make a big stink till they get their way. The Republicans are the ones not playing by the rules here, and yet the media (much of the mainstream media is conservative) is saying the Democrats are the problem. It's all a ploy.

As usual, the Republican machine is doing a great job casting villains since they don't have legs to stand on with the actual issues at stake. Is this why Bush's PR spending is about twice that of Clinton's? Can't do things based on merit, so bamboozle the public instead?

[hm0504]

Originally posted by MJ_KC:
Personally, I wish that Clinton had gone back in and finished the job that Bush Sr. started.

Umm, the Gulf War was finished well before Clinton came in (540,000 American troops started withdrawing in March, 1991 -- 8 months before Clinton was sworn in). Are you saying, Clinton (and the U.S.'s many allies at the time) should have sent their troops back 8 months later after they withdrew?

I think not. President Bush Sr., in 1998, reflecting on the first war with Iraq, expressed well (with Lieutenant General Brent Scowcroft) the foolhardiness of trying to occupy that country:
"Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different - and perhaps barren - outcome."

[hm0504]

BTW MJ_KC,

I cannot help but wonder from your first (closer up) avatar if you are of Irish descent. If I may ask, are you?

[Bob S.]

"Are you saying, Clinton (and the U.S.'s many allies at the time) should have sent their troops back 8 months later after they withdrew?"

There was a report on TV many years ago that talked of a plan that used the (Kurds?) in the north who would have gotten Saddam up there to deal with them, leading him into a trap, where they could have captured him (potentially with some US help--It was too long ago for me to remember the exact plan).

But the plan came undone as a result of miscommunication and a lack of presidential support at the critical time. The battle went on, but the Kurds lost. So yes, Clinton had a chance to take out Saddam with very minimal US casulties and kept the US out of the civil war.

As for the "nuclear option", I heard about a small cadre of Democrats back in the early 90s, when they were still in control of the Congress, who wanted to get rid of the Filibuster totally. Some of those Senators are still there.

Bob S.

[hm0504]

As I recall, the hope in 1991 and thereafter, for a couple of years, was that Saddam (with his army crushed) would be overthrown by both Kurdish and Shiite forces.

[hm0504]

A Drive Through Mosul (Iraq):
http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2669647

[MJ_KC]

Originally posted by hm0504:
BTW MJ_KC,

I cannot help but wonder from your first (closer up) avatar if you are of Irish descent. If I may ask, are you?
Yes. Also some Dutch, Welsh, German and some Cherokee among others. At this point I would just call myself American.

[MJ_KC]

Originally posted by Bob S.:
"Are you saying, Clinton (and the U.S.'s many allies at the time) should have sent their troops back 8 months later after they withdrew?"

Not 8 months later, but certainly not waiting until after 2 full 4 year terms and then the next President having to go in and take care of a problem that should have already been dealt with.

The international community does not have the backbone to make the difficult call when it come to removing dictators from office. The U.S. government finally came to the conclusion that waiting any longer was not the right course of action.

[Torrignani]

Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):

I still find it hysterical that Frisk would rather threaten a nuclear option (which even though the Republican party coined the term their latest talking point memo forfids Republicans from using the term) then deal with the reasons a handful of the nominees are unfit for the bench. Of course there is a meglamanic in the White House that won't accept less then 100% of his nominees being appointed. Most, if not all presidents, have a handful of nominees that are rejected. That is just not good enough for George...he's an all or nothing kind of guy. If the nuclear option doesn't fly (and from the polls Americans don't want it) then no doubt he will charge the Dems with sedition for not backing him 100%. I wonder if his belligerence is a result of his being a dry-drunk...he certainly fits the scenario.

As in other posts, your understanding of FACTS is really quite poor. Since Eisenhower, presidents average approximately 87% confirmation rate of judicial appointments in their first term. Bush's first term rate? 53%. Most of those are nominations that were never voted on by the full senate. So, yes, every president has some rejects, but a little more than half of Bush's have been confirmed, and most never even received a vote. That's not all or nothing, that's just hoping to make up the 37 percentage points to maintain the average. Please, try to to have a factual basis for your arguments so we can have a rational discussion.


Furthermore, you and Ren both have a flawed understanding of the filibuster. It was never specifically designated for judicial appointments - just peruse the Constitution, if you wish to improve your education. Republicans are not trying to do away with the filibuster entirely, just for judicial nominees. Incidentally, this was a point Patrick Leahy of Vermont made on the floor of the Senate in 1998.

As for the merits of the judges - what's wrong with them? What disqualifies them from being confirmed? What is so odious about them that makes Democrats intent on a filibuster? I've yet to see anything disreputable about them. So yes, let's have a discussion of the merits of the judges and then have an up or down full-senate vote, just as the Founding Fathers intended...

[Naturist Mark]

Originally posted by Torrignani:

As in other posts, your understanding of FACTS is really quite poor. Since Eisenhower, presidents average approximately 87% confirmation rate of judicial appointments in their first term. Bush's first term rate? 53%. Most of those are nominations that were never voted on by the full senate. So, yes, every president has some rejects, but a little more than half of Bush's have been confirmed, and most never even received a vote. That's not all or nothing, that's just hoping to make up the 37 percentage points to maintain the average. Please, try to to have a factual basis for your arguments so we can have a rational discussion. 208 of Bush's 218 nominations have been confirmed. That's 95.2%
Furthermore, you and Ren both have a flawed understanding of the filibuster. It was never specifically designated for judicial appointments - just peruse the Constitution, if you wish to improve your education. Republicans are not trying to do away with the filibuster entirely, just for judicial nominees. Incidentally, this was a point Patrick Leahy of Vermont made on the floor of the Senate in 1998.
The filibuster is not mentioned in the Constitution, but it was already a longtime tradition in colonial legislatures long before the colonies became the United States, the founding fathers knew of, expected, and approved of the use of filibusters when they drafted the Constitution. They never intended the Advise and Consent power of the Senate to be a rubber stamp, they expected it to be used in cases of presidential appointments - especially of lifetime judicial appointments - so that those so chosen were broadly respected and acceptable to the minority, this was an especially important feature of the Advise and Consent power to southern delegates who feared their more numerous northern colleagues could use their majority to place judges unsympathetic to certain 'peculiar' southern institutions. Advise and Consent was designed with the filibuster rule in mind, not "even" in the case of judicial nominees, but especially in the case of judicial nominees.
As for the merits of the judges - what's wrong with them? What disqualifies them from being confirmed? What is so odious about them that makes Democrats intent on a filibuster? I've yet to see anything disreputable about them. So yes, let's have a discussion of the merits of the judges and then have an up or down full-senate vote, just as the Founding Fathers intended... Have you gone online to look at the records of those 10 judges? Here's what some of their opponents find troubling. (http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=14172)

-Mark

[Hooked]

Originally posted by Bob S.:
"Are you saying, Clinton (and the U.S.'s many allies at the time) should have sent their troops back 8 months later after they withdrew?"

There was a report on TV many years ago that talked of a plan that used the (Kurds?) in the north who would have gotten Saddam up there to deal with them, leading him into a trap, where they could have captured him (potentially with some US help--It was too long ago for me to remember the exact plan).

But the plan came undone as a result of miscommunication and a lack of presidential support at the critical time. The battle went on, but the Kurds lost. So yes, Clinton had a chance to take out Saddam with very minimal US casulties and kept the US out of the civil war.

Bob S.

This sort of Machiavellian tactic will never work and only a president of low morality or just plain desperation would ever stoop so low. Keeping one outcast society in the dark ages so you can use them as pawns against another group that you see as bothersome is just morally devoid, IMHO. I feel compassion is the only method with lasting affects but this is coming from a humanist. Maybe it would be better to help the Kurds improve themselves. Maybe empower the Iraqi citenzenry. Nope can't do that, then they'd be smart enough not to put up with the crap from the US.

By the way, Naturist Mark, good job. You zinged em again. Your arguments are solid as rock. I'm so glad you're on our side. You inspire me.

[Hooked]

p.s.

I'm not a big fan of Bill Clinton and I think his wife is a crook but blaming him for not "ending the Gulf War" or similar statements I've seen on this board makes about as much sense as a soup sandwhich. I agree, the troops were coming home before he was sworn in. End of story. Yes, there were other steps he had the power to take but this is the first time I've ever heard of a president being blamed for something he wasn't even in office for at the time. If anyone is to blame, it's the Bush Dynasty as they had the most significant interaction during the most volatile episodes in the gulf crises. Not that it even matters at this point but get real people, Clinton is a scum bag but he was no more responsible for the way the Gulf War culminated in recent years than I am responsible for the painting of the Sistene Chapel

[P.J.]

Originally posted by jon71:
There are Christians who are conservative, moderate, liberal, and in my case very Liberal. Just like we are tall, short, black, white, gay, straight, etc., etc, ad infinitum.


I freely admit to being a conservative Christian.
Regardless of which side of the middle of the road that we Christians stand on, we cannot allow ourselves to be ignorant nor (and this is probably more difficult for many of us) be divided.
Sometimes, we can use a healthy dose of dissent and engage in an interesting disagreement among fellow believers, but in a public forum, we must be civil towards one another. We also should refrain from hateful tactics of name-calling and pinning labels on one another.

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by Torrignani:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):

I still find it hysterical that Frisk would rather threaten a nuclear option (which even though the Republican party coined the term their latest talking point memo forfids Republicans from using the term) then deal with the reasons a handful of the nominees are unfit for the bench. Of course there is a meglamanic in the White House that won't accept less then 100% of his nominees being appointed. Most, if not all presidents, have a handful of nominees that are rejected. That is just not good enough for George...he's an all or nothing kind of guy. If the nuclear option doesn't fly (and from the polls Americans don't want it) then no doubt he will charge the Dems with sedition for not backing him 100%. I wonder if his belligerence is a result of his being a dry-drunk...he certainly fits the scenario.

As in other posts, your understanding of FACTS is really quite poor. Since Eisenhower, presidents average approximately 87% confirmation rate of judicial appointments in their first term. Bush's first term rate? 53%. Most of those are nominations that were never voted on by the full senate. So, yes, every president has some rejects, but a little more than half of Bush's have been confirmed, and most never even received a vote. That's not all or nothing, that's just hoping to make up the 37 percentage points to maintain the average. Please, try to to have a factual basis for your arguments so we can have a rational discussion.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry Torrignani, you numbers don't seem to be valid:

July 22, 2004


Bush Judicial Nominees Confirmed At a Rate Better Than or Equal to Recent Presidents

Democrats have acted in an even-handed manner in considering President Bush's judicial nominees; as a result, President Bush has appointed nearly 200 federal judges (198 total, including 35 circuit court nominees) during his presidency. Democrats have supported a fair and efficient confirmation process while discharging their constitutional duties and protecting the fairness and independence of the federal courts. This reasonable approach was recently illustrated by the bipartisan agreement to have confirmation votes on 25 judicial nominees, including five circuit court nominees.

Ninety-Seven Percent Federal Judgeships Now Filled; Lowest Number Of Vacancies Since Reagan

Today, 851 men and women serve as judges in our Article III federal courts, which is more than at any time in our history. With only 28 vacant seats, 97 percent of the authorized judgeships are filled and we are at the lowest number of vacancies since the Reagan Administration.1 There are now fewer vacancies on both the Circuit and District Courts than at any time in President Clinton's two terms.

Eighty-Eight Percent Of Bush's Nominees Confirmed Thus Far; Higher Than The 81 Percent Confirmed During Clinton's First Four Years

The high number of judicial confirmations reflects the significant work of the Senate in considering President Bush's judicial nominees. President Bush's judicial nominees have been confirmed at a rate better than or equal to his recent predecessors in their first or only terms in office.

HISTORICAL COMPARISON:

CIRCUIT AND DISTRICT COURT NOMINEES DURING THE FIRST FOUR YEARS

President
Total Nominees Submitted
Total Nominees Confirmed
Percent of Nominees Confirmed

G.W. Bush
225
198
88%

Clinton
246
200
81%

G.H.W. Bush
250
192
77%

Reagan
185
163
88%


Only Seven Nominees Blocked; All of Whom Are Outside The Mainstream

Democrats have used the filibuster sparingly, only to block a handful of judicial nominees with records outside the mainstream. Democrats have blocked only seven Bush judicial nominees. Republicans blocked confirmation votes on more than 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominees (including nearly two dozen Circuit Court nominees).

Percentage of Nominees Approved (http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-doc.cfm?doc_name=fs-108-2-197)

[MJ_KC]

Originally posted by Hooked:
p.s.

I'm not a big fan of Bill Clinton and I think his wife is a crook but blaming him for not "ending the Gulf War" or similar statements I've seen on this board makes about as much sense as a soup sandwhich. I agree, the troops were coming home before he was sworn in. End of story. Yes, there were other steps he had the power to take but this is the first time I've ever heard of a president being blamed for something he wasn't even in office for at the time. If anyone is to blame, it's the Bush Dynasty as they had the most significant interaction during the most volatile episodes in the gulf crises. Not that it even matters at this point but get real people, Clinton is a scum bag but he was no more responsible for the way the Gulf War culminated in recent years than I am responsible for the painting of the Sistene Chapel
Iraq was an ongoing problem throughout Clinton's 8 years in office so he does indeed share some responsibility for how things played out in Iraq.

He let the U.N. have its way for 8 years while Hussein thumbed his nose at us and continued amassing a personal fortune.

[hm0504]

Originally posted by MJ_KC:
Iraq was an ongoing problem throughout Clinton's 8 years in office so he does indeed share some responsibility for how things played out in Iraq.

He let the U.N. have its way for 8 years while Hussein thumbed his nose at us and continued amassing a personal fortune.

During the Clinton years, Iraq was rid of its WMD and became continually weakened, largely thanks to heavily enforced no-fly zones and, apparently, highly-effice WMD monitoring by the UN. Since the U.S./UK invasion, Iraq is now a hundred times the threat it was when Clinton left office.

Let me repeat the 1998 quote of President Bush Sr.:
President Bush Sr., in 1998, reflecting on the first war with Iraq, expressed well (with Lieutenant General Brent Scowcroft) the foolhardiness of trying to occupy that country:
"Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different - and perhaps barren - outcome."

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by hm0504:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MJ_KC:
Iraq was an ongoing problem throughout Clinton's 8 years in office so he does indeed share some responsibility for how things played out in Iraq.

He let the U.N. have its way for 8 years while Hussein thumbed his nose at us and continued amassing a personal fortune.

During the Clinton years, Iraq was rid of its WMD and became continually weakened, largely thanks to heavily enforced no-fly zones and, apparently, highly-effice WMD monitoring by the UN. Since the U.S./UK invasion, Iraq is now a hundred times the threat it was when Clinton left office.

Let me repeat the 1998 quote of President Bush Sr.:
President Bush Sr., in 1998, reflecting on the first war with Iraq, expressed well (with Lieutenant General Brent Scowcroft) the foolhardiness of trying to occupy that country:
"Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different - and perhaps barren - outcome." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
------------------------------------------------

<span class="ev_code_BLUE">HM, I'm sorry but you are wasting your breath. The hawks don't see either the harm nor the cost in human life when it comes to nation destroying and nation building. Alas, nation building begins at home!</span>

[Unwired]

Originally posted by P.J.:

Regardless of which side of the middle of the road that we Christians stand on, we cannot allow ourselves to be ignorant nor (and this is probably more difficult for many of us) be divided.

I sincerely hope you're not suggesting that one has to toe a political "party line" in order to have legitimacy as a Christian believer. If that is the case, then that's the same kind of rhetoric that, taken to extremes, gets people booted from their congregations for not voting a certain way, denied sacraments for their positions, and worse.

It would be nice if unity among Christian believers could be expressed on the most important things we ostensibly believe, but unfortunately we can't even seem to achieve that. But no one should be discouraged from dissention (even publicly) on political issues in order to promote the appearance of political single-mindedness and 'unity'. It's the image of all believers marching in lockstep with the loudest and most strident voices that is largely responsible for the bad rep believers have in the eyes of the public at large.



Unwired

[Ren]

Wow, I thought I was going nuts. I mean, I did say rule of law, but luckily I didn't say anything about filibusters being in the Constitution.

Filibuster is a general term; I also never said it was specifically for the judicial appointees. What's interesting is that they want to do away with a rule because it doesn't suit their purposes.

I did make a mistake within my hasty schedule --- I meant to say that they want to do away with the filibuster because they don't have enough votes to invoke cloture. A nominee just needs a simple majority.

I applaud the Democrats for threatening to fight valiantly (and it's about time they grew a spine) to keep the hostile takeover from happening. It might surprise Bush and his cronies that by doing this to the country, he's effectively thumbing his nose at half the country that proved to majorly disagree with him and his policies this past November.

[Hooked]

Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MJ_KC:
Iraq was an ongoing problem throughout Clinton's 8 years in office so he does indeed share some responsibility for how things played out in Iraq.

He let the U.N. have its way for 8 years while Hussein thumbed his nose at us and continued amassing a personal fortune.

During the Clinton years, Iraq was rid of its WMD and became continually weakened, largely thanks to heavily enforced no-fly zones and, apparently, highly-effice WMD monitoring by the UN. Since the U.S./UK invasion, Iraq is now a hundred times the threat it was when Clinton left office.

Let me repeat the 1998 quote of President Bush Sr.:
President Bush Sr., in 1998, reflecting on the first war with Iraq, expressed well (with Lieutenant General Brent Scowcroft) the foolhardiness of trying to occupy that country:
"Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different - and perhaps barren - outcome." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
------------------------------------------------

<span class="ev_code_BLUE">HM, I'm sorry but you are wasting your breath. The hawks don't see either the harm nor the cost in human life when it comes to nation destroying and nation building. Alas, nation building begins at home!</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

While we're at it, let's blame George Washington for the Viet Nam conflict and Ronald Reagan for the Civil War.

[Trailscout]

George Washington was a tax and spend liberal. During his term in office, some industrious folks in Pennsylvania west of the Alleghenies had found a way to solve their transport problem, getting their perishable corn crop over the mountains to the eastern seaboard cities by converting it into corn whiskey. Their profits from this operation were already quite lean and our liberal president greedily decided to put a tax on home-brewed whiskey. That would have eliminated the modest profit they made and there was no other commodity they could get to market.

That set off what is now known as the Whiskey Rebellion. A lot of folks are still mad at GW for trying to tax the mountain folks with the only crop they could get to market.

My family used to be in the liquor distribution business back in the 1920's and 30's. The fact that it was illegal made it even more risky a business, but at least it was tax-free since we only took cash for our "recipe".

[Torrignani]

Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):

CIRCUIT AND DISTRICT COURT NOMINEES DURING THE FIRST FOUR YEARS

President
Total Nominees Submitted
Total Nominees Confirmed
Percent of Nominees Confirmed

G.W. Bush
225
198
88%

Clinton
246
200
81%

G.H.W. Bush
250
192
77%

Reagan
185
163
88%


Interestingly, we are both right. In my earlier post, I should have said "circuit court" nominess rather than "judicial nominees." The circuit court confirmation rate is indeed 53%, which is the lowest ever. Now, this is important, because the circuit court is the most contentious and mostly hotly debated federal court other than the Supreme Court. Some call it a "farm league" of sorts for future Supreme Court nominations. So, in the most important category, Bush's confirmation rate is 53%, which is the lowest ever. His confirmation rate for the district court judges, which are by far the least important (90% or more for any president usually), is 96%. Overall, if you look at appellate judges, the confirmation rate is 69%, which is much lower than most. So, you are correct that he has an 87% rate if you look at ALL judges, but only a 53% rate for the most important.

Also, look at the time to confirmation. Though some have been confirmed eventually, they have undoubtedly been slowed by the Democrats. Here is a comparison in number of days to confirmation for the past few presidents:

Appeals Court Nominees Days to confirmation (average number of days)
69.824 Carter
68.265 Reagan
92.462 Bush I
230.6462 Clinton
262.7576 Bush II

District Court Nominees Days to confirmation (average number of days)
70.715 Carter
68.0625 Reagan
102.0694 Bush I
132.2904 Clinton
157.3533 Bush II

DC Appeals Court Nominees Days to confirmation (average number of days)
86.25 Carter
70.077 Reagan
84.75 Bush I
242.143 Clinton
729 Bush II

Appeals Court Nominees confirmation rate in percent (average rate)
93.443 Carter
89.3617 Reagan
78 Bush I
74.157 Clinton
66.6667 Bush II

[Torrignani]

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:

The filibuster is not mentioned in the Constitution, but it was already a longtime tradition in colonial legislatures long before the colonies became the United States, the founding fathers knew of, expected, and approved of the use of filibusters when they drafted the Constitution. They never intended the Advise and Consent power of the Senate to be a rubber stamp, they expected it to be used in cases of presidential appointments - especially of lifetime judicial appointments - so that those so chosen were broadly respected and acceptable to the minority, this was an especially important feature of the Advise and Consent power to southern delegates who feared their more numerous northern colleagues could use their majority to place judges unsympathetic to certain 'peculiar' southern institutions. Advise and Consent was designed with the filibuster rule in mind, not "even" in the case of judicial nominees, but especially in the case of judicial nominees.

Thanks, Mark, for making my point, perhaps better than I could have myself. I agree with you that filibuster is not in the Constitution (I never said it was, Ren). That being the case, what's the problem with changing an old tradition? Isn't that what being progressive is all about?

And I also agree with Senators Kennedy, Leahy, and Schumer in the late 1990's in their comments on debating judicial nominees:

Leahy: "I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported; that I felt the Senate should do its duty." (Sen. Patrick Leahy, Congressional Record, 6/18/98, p. S6521)

Leahy: "Vote them up, vote them down." (Sen. Patrick Leahy, Congressional Record, 9/21/99, p. S11102)

Kennedy: "We owe it to Americans across the country to give these nominees a vote. If our Republican colleagues don't like them, vote against them. But give them a vote." (Sen. Edward Kennedy, Congressional Record, 2/3/98, p. S295)

Schumer: "The basic issue of holding up judgeships is the issue before us, not the qualifications of judges, which we can always debate. The problem is it takes so long for us to debate those qualifications. It is an example of Government not fulfilling its constitutional mandate because the President nominates, and we are charged with voting on the nominees." (Sen. Charles Schumer, Congressional Record, 3/7/00, p. S1211)

So, I agree with these esteemed senators: let's give them an up or down vote, and stop this filibuster nonsense. Presumably, these three would side with the Republicans and invoke the "nuclear option, would they not?

[Ren]

Progressivism is not about changing everything that is an old tradition, it is about moving forward in this world by being socially and environmentally responsible people. Progressives don't seek to change the everything old for the sake of making it new. They look to the basic tenets upon which this system of government was built and hope to ensure that we, now, are living up to the ideals presented. Protecting a minority is one of those things that needs protection (in the Constitution, it's "promoting the general welfare," in the D of I, it's "all men are created equal." The filibuster is important to protect from the tyrrany of the majority. Especially when the majority has publicly sought to deny people equality under the law and has a very hard time in working to promote the general welfare.

[Torrignani]

Originally posted by Ren:

The filibuster is important to protect from the tyrrany of the majority. Especially when the majority has publicly sought to deny people equality under the law and has a very hard time in working to promote the general welfare.

I agree, which is why I'm against doing away with the filibuster entirely. But it has very rarely been used for judicial nominees, so I have no problem with banning them specifically for that purpose. Read the post above, and you'll see that even your Senator Kennedy agrees...

[jon71]

Lifelong appointments are too important to allow these extremist wackos on the bench. If they can't get the support to overcome a filibuster they should simply go back to Texas (or wherever) and make way for a legitimate appointment.

[P.J.]

Originally posted by Unwired:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by P.J.:

Regardless of which side of the middle of the road that we Christians stand on, we cannot allow ourselves to be ignorant nor (and this is probably more difficult for many of us) be divided.

I sincerely hope you're not suggesting that one has to toe a political "party line" in order to have legitimacy as a Christian believer. If that is the case, then that's the same kind of rhetoric that, taken to extremes, gets people booted from their congregations for not voting a certain way, denied sacraments for their positions, and worse.

It would be nice if unity among Christian believers could be expressed on the most important things we ostensibly believe, but unfortunately we can't even seem to achieve that. But no one should be discouraged from dissention (even publicly) on political issues in order to promote the appearance of political single-mindedness and 'unity'. It's the image of all believers marching in lockstep with the loudest and most strident voices that is largely responsible for the bad rep believers have in the eyes of the public at large.



Unwired </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey Unwired...
You brought up a good point and a potentially scary question, when you brought up the connection between being a legitimite Christian by political party affiliation.
I hope that neither the Republican nor the Democratic parties will ever drift so far to the extreme to become incompatible with Christianity.
If that day approaches, then we absolutely must stop compromising with the extremists and stand up for our principles.
Look what happened in the last days of Germany's Weimer Republic and Czarist Russia.

[Ren]

I don't run in lockstep with my senator. The Dems were just as bad for suggesting doing away with the filibuster then as the Repubs are now.

[Captain Zen]

Seeing the title of this thread,
When will we wake up?
I think it better to stay asleep.
Look at this if you are having bad dreams while asleep:
http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2005-05-22-571pglie.php
And if you wake up, better stay quiet if you are a patriot, they don't ask questions.