Wow, talk about pot calling kettle black....Look at this list of republican senators who've done everything in their power to stall Clinton nominees......

-- Modified on 5/10/2005 11:01:11 AM

One must also take into account this list covers only the current crop of Gross Obfuscating Pricks (GOP) in the Senate, and does not include those GOP Senators who either resigned, were voted out of office, or offered other positions in the government.
A government no longer of the people by the people and certainly not FOR the people.

And you wonder why I dropped out of the mainstream to become a Gonzo Free Thinking stone drunkard? ALL the buttplugs in orifice today aren't worth a good god damn beyond what their special interest Lords and Masters want them to do.
And before the pompous bloviators of the right wing start in with their name calling and obfuscating misdirection, bear in mind I am referring to all of them, Democraps and Republicraps alike.
Muhammed Atta would have better served the world if he had aimed at the Capitol Building instead of the World Trade Center. Typical stupid fucking Islamofascist terrorist, aiming at innocent people instead of the real villians.

You don't like what I said? Too fucking bad. Free speech, muthafuquas!!! Now eat my brownies! Woohoo!!!!


-- Modified on 5/10/2005 11:49:16 AM

It's only bad when the other side does it. BTW are you a stoned out drunkard? or a drunked out stoner? Either way, you hit the nail on the head.PS Don't even think about fucking up that good Johnny Blue with that Dihydrogen shit.LMAO

But my high of choice has always been the BBBJTCIM head rush.

The senate HAS REJECTED 20% of judicial nominations since 1789 many WITHOUT an up or down vote -- yet the Democrates have only held up 4% of Bush nominees...

These Republicans ARE SOOOOOO FULL OF SHIT it defies gravity.  They just want power.

...it is called fascism

Check this out:

The Not-So-Secret History of Filibusters

By GEORGE J. MITCHELL, NYT

Published: May 10, 2005

EVERYONE recalls "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," but too few remember the real-life Mrs. Smith. So, as the Senate nears a vote on a proposal to unilaterally change Senate rules for confirming federal judges, I am reminded of the words spoken 55 years ago by Senator Margaret Chase Smith of Maine in her famous "Declaration of Conscience" against the tactics of Senator Joe McCarthy, a member of her own party.

"I don't believe the American people will uphold any political party that puts political exploitation above national interest," the senator said. "Surely we Republicans aren't that desperate for victory. While it might be a fleeting victory for the Republican Party, it would be a more lasting defeat for the American people. Surely it would ultimately be suicide for the Republican Party and the two-party system that has protected our American liberties from the dictatorship of a one-party system."

The circumstances are obviously different; there is no McCarthyism in the current dispute. But the principles of exercising independent judgment and preserving our system of checks and balances are at the heart of the Senate rules debate.

Senator Smith embodied independence and understood the Senate's singular place in our system of checks and balances. Our founders created that system to prevent abuse of power and to protect our rights and freedoms. The president's veto power is a check on Congress. The Senate's power to confirm or reject judicial nominees balances the president's authority to nominate them. The proposal by some Republican senators to change rules that have governed the Senate for two centuries now puts that system in danger.

Since 1789, the Senate has rejected nearly 20 percent of all nominees to the Supreme Court, many without an up-or-down vote.

In 1968 Republican senators used a filibuster to block voting on President Lyndon B. Johnson's nominee for chief justice of the Supreme Court. During the debate, a Republican senator, Robert Griffin, said: "It is important to realize that it has not been unusual for the Senate to indicate its lack of approval for a nomination by just making sure that it never came to a vote on the merits. As I said, 21 nominations to the court have failed to win Senate approval. But only nine of that number were rejected on a direct, up-and-down vote."

Between 1968 and 2001, both parties used filibusters to oppose judicial nominees. In 2000, the last year of Bill Clinton's presidency, Republican senators filibustered two of his nominees to be circuit judges. They also prevented Senate votes on more than 60 of Mr. Clinton's judicial nominees by other means.

So much for the assertion that filibustering to prevent votes on judicial nominees is a new tactic invented by Senate Democrats.

Senate rules can be changed, and they often have been. But Senate Republicans don't have the votes for a change within the rules. So they propose to go around them, to act unilaterally to get their way. It's what they call the "nuclear option."

They claim that their actions are justified because the filibuster is being used unfairly to stop the confirmation of President Bush's nominees. But 208 of the president's 218 judicial nominees have been approved. That's right: the Senate has confirmed 95 percent of Mr. Bush's judicial nominees. That's a higher percentage of approval than any of his three predecessors achieved.

During my six years as majority leader of the Senate, Republicans, then in the minority, often used filibusters to achieve their goals. I didn't like the results, but I accepted them because Republicans were acting within the rules; and we were able to work together on many other issues. There were 55 Democratic senators then. We had the power to take the drastic action now being proposed, but we refrained from exercising that power because it was as wrong then as it is now.

Most Americans may not be aware of the complexities of the Senate's rules, but they do know and understand two fundamental principles: playing by the rules and dealing fairly with others.

The nuclear option violates both. If it's exercised, I hope that enough modern-day Senator Smiths, guided by what is best for the nation and the Senate, will vote to stop it.

-- Modified on 5/11/2005 9:51:49 AM

The desperation of the far Left is fairly obvious when you make obscenely broad assertions with no support whatsoever.  Of course, Mitchell fails to identify specifically the circumstances so that he can evade responsibility for his lies.
For instance, he suggests that the GOP filibustered a Supreme Court nominee in 1968.  Presumably, he refers to Abe Fortas.  Of course, the former Michigan Senator who "put a hold" on that nomination --- and Mitchell, as (blessedly) former Senate Majority Leader, should know the difference --- has been quoted --- albeit not broadly, as the so-called "mainstream" media hates to allow facts to interfere with their propaganda --- as noting that there was never a filibuster of Fortas.  It is the same Robert Griffin whom Mitchell quotes out of context to support his position.  Moreover, Fortas was blocked for impropriety.  There is little dispute that Bush's nominees are being blocked for purely ideological reasons.
Mitchell's second failing is his failure or refusal to identify the "two of [Clinton']s nominees to be circuit judges."  Again, there were no "filibusters" of Clinton judges.  These are procedural matters of which Mitchell is or should be aware.
Or maybe he's just another far Left liar, a fairly disturbing characteristic in a man who was once a federal judge himself.

And BTW, what the Hell is meant by "a proposal to unilaterally change Senate rules" in reference to a body of 100, requiring a vote of at least 50 --- broken by the VP, if necessary --- to accomplish something.

Or is ole Georgie merely using one of the buzzwords of the far Left to rouse the rabble?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45149-2005Mar17.html


http://movies.crooksandliars.com/CBS1968-09-25.wmv

However, even if accurate (there is apparently a dispute), it is beyond dispute that Bush's nominees would be confirmed, if allowed to have a vote.  It is also beyond dispute that the delay for Fortas was occasioned by ultimately proven allegations of impropriety, while the opposition to Bush's nominees is, at worst, sour grapes over two national elections lost by the far Left and a strong GOP congressional majority or, at best, purely ideological.
The only wrap on Bush's nominees is that their insufficiently politically correct to suit the far Lefties at People for the [Un]American Way and the Leadership Conference for Civil Rights.  And that's why we have elections.

Here is a left wing website that does a nice job of refuting your post:  http://www.leanleft.com/archives/2005/02/15/4028/

and yes, I went to the site.  Again, I say, consider the source.  What PFAW considers "extremist" is mainstream in the real world.  And then there's the fact that it lies, claiming that these judges were "rejected" in Bush's first term.  Fact is, they were never rejected or accepted, as a vote was never held.  And then it claims that Presidents have given virtual veto power to home-state Senators from the opposite party.  I don't think that withstands much scrutiny.

Let's go down the list:
Claude Allen --- makes some good, objective points about experience.  They give me pause (aside from the fact that he graduated from law school after I did).  'Course, then it launches off into ideological objections to his philosophy.  Give him a vote, and see if the former makes a difference to the Senate.

Janice Rogers Brown --- purely ideological objections.  That the California Bar finds her unqualified is one reason why most of the rest of the world would declare her "qualified."  Give her a vote.

Thomas Griffith --- cites seemingly objective criteria, which boil down to the fact that he didn't pay his bar dues.  Sorry, that just doesn't wash.  In most instances, payment of such dues is merely a ministerial act handled by administrators, not the lawyers themselves.  And then, again, it lauches off into purely ideological objections.  Give him a vote.

William Haynes II --- After a purely ideological attack, it finally gets around to questioning his experience, claiming that it's significant that he could only list two cases that he had personally litigated.  However, since when is that important?  Felix Frankfurter was a Harvard Law professor, and I doubt that he "personally litigated" many --- if any --- cases.  What about Hugo Black?  He was a long-time Alabama Senator, not a litigator.    Give him a vote, and see if it makes a difference to the Senate.

J. Leon Holmes --- a purely ideological attack focusing upon his refusal to tout the far Left's constitutional fantasies about abortion.  Give him a vote.

Brett M. Kavanaugh --- a purely ideological attack, focusing upon his participation in the Independent Counsel's investigation of the Clintons and their dealings (you know, the one that resulted in 11 convictions and the impeachment of a President).  Only then does it get around to mentioning his relative inexperience.  It then mentions that only one (Kenneth Starr) had less experience than Kavanaugh.  But until the slander machine started up against Starr, he was widely considered one of the best judges on the federal appellate courts, and a great potential nominee to the Supremes.  Give him a vote, and see if the latter makes a difference to the Senate.

Carolyn Kuhl --- purely ideological attacks.  Give her a vote.

David McKeague --- purely ideological attacks, reiterating the notion that a Democrat home-state Senator should have veto power over a Republican President's nominees.  Give him a vote.

William G. Myers III --- purely ideological attacks from the environmentalist wacko fringe.  Give him a vote.

Priscilla Owens --- purely ideological attacks.  Give her a vote.

Charles W. Pickering, Sr. --- purely ideological attacks, including widely-refused slanders that he is some sort of racist, even though he enjoys wide support among civil rights leaders in his home state.  Give him a vote.

William H. Pryor, Sr. --- purely ideological attacks, with obligatory quotations from far Left editorial pages not surprisingly savaging him (including criticism of political comments made while he was -- surprise! -- and elected public official).  More focus upon his refusal to tout the far Left's constitutional fantasies about abortion.  Give him a vote.

Henry Saad --- purely ideological attack.  Give him a vote.

And a word about the last in the site: if ideological hackdom were disqualifying, then most of Clinton's judges --- and probably most judges since Roosevelt --- wouldn't be on the federal bench.

filibusters were made for radicals like this.....And the radical views I'm referring to don't even center around abortion or 1st. Amendment type issues--ie: adult entertainment etc. so please spare me the anti-left rhetoric, because most moderates would find her views disturbing, & even downright frightening....


"So, let’s put this in context. Bush has nominated a person to serve on the second highest court in the nation that believes FDR was a socialist, that minimum-wage regulations should be outlawed, that the New Deal was a “socialist revolution,” and that Social Security should be equated with “cannibalism.”

FDR did advance Socialism in this country; minimum wage legislation is both Socialist, and the belief that it should be outlawed is hardly radical (only to a lefty), and Social Security's practice of impoverishing the young to support the irresponsible (or even the wealthy) elderly, is cannibilistic.

Went to so-called PFAW's list of particulars against Brown.  After reading it, she's clearly an intellectual powerhouse who tells it like it is.  EXACTLY what the far Left fears.

If FDR and the "new deal" were not socialist, what were they?
Lets talk about Social security for a minute.  It is an icon to the left that has to be preserved so lets discuss what it was.

It is there to take care of people who can not work due to injury, disability, etc.  Ok, I think even most right wing folks would agree that there should be some kind of safety net for those who can not earn a living.
For retirement, it was established that people could retire and draw on it at age 65. Now lets look at that for a moment.  Contributions at 15.3% and payoff starting at 65.  At the time the legislation was written, the average life span was 59 years old.  That means that less than 1/2 of the people who pay into it live long enough to draw on it.  Also, you can not leave any of it to your kids even though your money went into the system.  sounds like kind of a scheme to me.  
Currently, to restore the system, I have yet to hear a Democrat propose to save the system by moving the age at which you can draw benefits to 6 years past the average lifespan.  That would be 82 today as the average lifespan for people born in 2005 is calculated to be 76 years.  It would seem that if the Democrats who honor Social Security want to save it, they should go back to the original promise even if it is a risky scheme that makes the stock market and private investment look like a sure bet.

The reality is that this is not about extremism from the nominees.  It is about a panicked left who know that the only way to push their socialist agenda is from the courts.  The taxpayers won't support the bill anymore.

Time for the up or down vote.

Isn't that supposed to mean something to you?  Or do you feel, when that happens that you should be able to "opt out," that is to say, nullify or secede.  Hasn't that battle been fought already, or are you pushing to fight it again?  The laws made by Congress are the laws of the land-- unless they are in conflict with the Constitution or its treaties, which are the supreme law of the land.    

Besides,  there's no amendment in the constitution outlawing socialism, on any basis, nor saying it can never be Congress's option.    

Your complaints also beg the question of whether you consider any cooperation, except the military, done through government to be socialist.

As for your "cannibalistic" reference, I'd say you're over-reaching in your suffering claims just a little.  If it's really like cannabilism, you wouldn't probably wouldn't be writing about it.  Losing your limb or life to a cannibal, or losing it period, is not comparable to sufferning high taxes, until it gets to the point where even subsistence is difficult and starvation kicks in. Tuberculosis, AIDS or cancer are comparable to cannibalism, only slower.  You're clearly above that point.

I think you're just doing what you accuse liberals of doing, and whining about being a victim, though for different reasons, if not exactly unsubstantial ones.

as you have an unerring ability to resort to claims of racism (or intimations of the same) when you're losing an argument.  You concede that Social Security is more accurately called Socialist Security, and then suggest that those who accurately identify it as such think that "you should be able to 'opt out,' that is to say, nullify or secede," equating opposition to it with sympathy for the Confederacy.  Amazing!

And as for the notion that "there's no amendment outlawing socialism," there doesn't have to be (though how that's relevant isn't explained), with the Constitution properly understood as limiting congressional power.  Obviously, you endorse the expansive view that permits Congress to do just about anything it wants under the "Commerce clause," a view not in vogue until --- you guessed it! --- the Thirties and the Supremes' Jones & Laughlin Steel decision (the "switch in time that saved the nine").

And yes, the military is socialistic.  The problem with your analysis is that authorization for the military is also one of the enumerated powers granted to Congress.

And "overreaching"?  Perhaps.  Leave it to a Lefty to whine about rhetoric.  And it's bold talk from a Lefty who repeatedly equates/compares Bush and/or Republicans with Hitler and the Nazis.

As for "whining," we Republicans leave that to those of you on the far Left.  You've elevated it to an art form.

The post didn't mention slavery James.  Get a good look at it.  States rights and the right of a minority to secede, that's what I'm bringing up, if you see slavery in that, it's either and error of concurrency, or you're just being a victim... again.    

Yes, the constitution puts limits, very specific ones, on Congress's power.  Within those limits, it can legistlate as it needs to, or even as it pleases.  It isn't just the Commerce clause.  Look at Section 8, paragraph 18:

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, **and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.**"

But of course, being a lawyer, you know this is in there.  You also know about the 14th amendment, and the 16th amendment.  As for some of the other interpretations, the interstate commerce clause, not everything the Founders wrote was made of gold.  The arrangement that they had in mind for interstate commerce was no longer workable after the railroads.  Just like Congresses power to regulate currency, wasn't workable.  Some Robber Barons were able to exploit these facts.  People grew tired of it, hence the reinterpretation of the interstate commerce clause.  

Ironically, James, as a liberal, shouldn't I be arguing now, according to your dogma, for the power of the court?

You never answered my question.  So, the military too, is socialistic.  That isn't what I asked.  So, I put it to you James, what human cooperation through government isn't socialistic in your mind?  

About rhetoric, yes, I have an objection to manipulating by using words you don't believe.  That is not my "whining" James.  It's a dispute, you make an out-and-out lie, a metaphor that can't be true even from your point of view, and when you're called on it, you claim you should be excused because it's mere rhetoric.  

Republicans whine James.  They just don't call it that. They'd call it rhetoric, just like you're able to call an out and out lie "rhetoric."      

It's bold talk from a lefty James, about Bush being like Hitler, because the evidence is now in and conclusive.  He stole the election big time.  With the help of an organized network.  The left is right about Bush, James. The Nazi analogies are more fitting every day for him, and you better hope he doesn't keep on fitting the mold, because you look a lot like a brownshirt now.  Beware of that first big purge, James.

No, if anything, he only says society should establish an "equal obligation for all to work."  Sounds to be the opposite of Social Security, doesn't it?  

I have my own problems with Social Security.  I don't think it's wise to divert resources from those in their prime who are raising children to those who are past their prime.  The main results: a supression of the birth rate so the population generally gets older and you eventually have a demographic drop in the number of youthful people, and a population drop (offset by immigration in our country's case.)  A growing economy with a shrinking population has been done on paper, but it is unknown in the real world.  Other consequences are worse.  

But I have to give credit where credit is due.  I think Social Security is one of the main factors in extending the life expectancy that you note.  When the program started, they couldn't know that was going to happen.  They didn't know what success would look like.

However, I think you could get extend life expectancy far better  by taking care of women during pregnancy and giving them good prenatal and post-natal care. It has been proved scientifically, if you can provide good care and resources early in life, especially prenatal care and resources, the resulting offspring will be healthier throughout, more intelligent and more productive.  

So, I think that the age of retirement should be gradually raised, and, at the same time, the tax gradually lowered and then phased out.  

If anything, we should give aid to children and to parents who have chosen to raise them.        

-- Modified on 5/22/2005 10:30:28 AM

"Nullification" and "secession" were, of course, the intellectual underpinnings for the Confederacy.  It seems that you thought you'd slide them past me, but you should probably try with someone a little less attuned to American history and American intellectual history.  Creating an ownership society by making Social Security economically viable with partial privatization has nothing to do with either "nullification" or "secession."
And no, not all government is "socialistic."  Socialism is, of course, rooted in the claim that government should be entitled to take property and tell people how to live their lives for the notion of a "common good" accepted only by sanctimonious social elites.  Hitler was a good example; others exist currently throughout Europe and in American academia.
As for your last, well, that type of nonsense just indicates that it's probably not worth responding after this.  It's clearly long past the time for you to take your medication and descend from "cloud-cuckoo land."  And yes, that's a Nazi reference, quoting what some Germans (too few, sadly) viewed Hitler as inhabiting.