Random stuff to argue about (fka the Fascist thread)

[TrailBate]

So, why is the govn't going after baseball and the Shiavo's? So you don't notice that the Republicans are attempting to silence the minority forever, exercising more political power than in the entire history of the US government. The Republicans have called it the "nuclear (Nukular) Option."



The "nuclear option" calls for Dick Cheney to use a parliamentary trick to overturn the 200-year-old right to filibuster judicial nominations. A filibuster is simply the right of a group of at least 41 concerned senators to extend debate and delay controversial votes. If Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist can twist enough arms to get 51 votes in support of Cheney's ruling, the minority party will be completely silenced for the first time ever.


***Radical Republicans want absolute power to appoint Supreme Court justices that will favor corporate interests and the extreme right over the rest of us.

***To get it, they plan to use a parliamentary trick they call the "nuclear option" to overturn 200 years of bipartisan checks and balances that have kept the courts fair for centuries.

***After eliminating the right to filibuster, Bush and the Republicans would have absolute, unchecked power over all three branches of the federal government for the first time in American history.

***While the "nuclear option" is likely to come up in a fight over an Appeals Court nominee, make no mistake—the real targets here are the 4 Supreme Court seats likely to turn over in the next 4 years.

***Republicans have taken millions of dollars from their corporate backers. Now as payback, they're trying to force through judges who will favor those same corporate interests by overturning laws protecting the environment, civil rights, and workers—laws these companies have been trying to get rid of for years.

Keep in mind that a full 90% of Bush's nominees have been approved by the democrats, but the Bushies say this is NOT enough! They have decided they should get everything they want! This is not what the US gov't was set up to do!

[priss]

[quote author=TrailBait link=board=36;threadid=6019;start=0#42720 date=1111782995]
This is not what the US gov't was set up to do!
[/quote]

Is this the government that was set up in the US in the begining when these rules were made? 2 partys that do nothing with the peoples interest involved but only act to discedit one another to secure power.

Now we are all forced to pick one or the other and if we lose then we get no representation at all.

Civil War starts over such as this.

[bdee]

The Republicans are really going to screw the pooch with this one. Does Dick and CO. really think they will be the majority forever? What's going to happen when the shoe's on the other foot - oh wait then they'll argue it's "un - American" for their right to filibuster to be quashed (even though they caused it). :

Whatever your stance politically this goes well beyond a right/left issue. This removes a core principle of our governmental system. One party rule wasn't the idea 225 + years ago.

I'm still naive enough to be blown away by these types of things, I'll admit it. I never thought I'd reach 30 and see the things I'm seeing now. Where the hell are the moderates, on both sides? There has been way too much pandering to certain segments of the voting base by one side, while the other side just rolled over and played dead.
The only thing that keeps me from going nuts is knowing that there will be a backlash to all of it at some point. Remember what happened after Bush part 1 (not a horrible President - especially compared to Junior and his predeccesor).

[BG]

Hmmm, fascism, civil war...Note to self;

Stop in at Pete's gun shop on the way home.
Join heavily armed white supremacist group in northern NH over the Easter holiday.

All set, Thanks

BG

[gnurider1080]

how long does it take to gain citizenship in canada? why do i have a feeling im gonna be drafted when i turn 18?

[BG]

[quote author=gnurider1080 link=board=36;threadid=6019;start=0#42743 date=1111794948]
how long does it take to gain citizenship in canada? why do i have a feeling im gonna be drafted when i turn 18?
[/quote]

Mention my name.

http://www.student.cs.uwaterloo.ca/~jj2lee/DND/

BG

[Rych]

[quote author=TrailBait link=board=36;threadid=6019;start=0#42720 date=1111782995]
So, why is the govn't going after baseball and the Shiavo's? So you don't notice that the Republicans are attempting to silence the minority forever, exercising more political power than in the entire history of the US government. The Republicans have called it the "nuclear (Nukular) Option."



The "nuclear option" calls for Dick Cheney to use a parliamentary trick to overturn the 200-year-old right to filibuster judicial nominations. A filibuster is simply the right of a group of at least 41 concerned senators to extend debate and delay controversial votes. If Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist can twist enough arms to get 51 votes in support of Cheney's ruling, the minority party will be completely silenced for the first time ever.


Radical Republicans want absolute power to appoint Supreme Court justices that will favor corporate interests and the extreme right over the rest of us.

To get it, they plan to use a parliamentary trick they call the "nuclear option" to overturn 200 years of bipartisan checks and balances that have kept the courts fair for centuries.

After eliminating the right to filibuster, Bush and the Republicans would have absolute, unchecked power over all three branches of the federal government for the first time in American history.

While the "nuclear option" is likely to come up in a fight over an Appeals Court nominee, make no mistake—the real targets here are the 4 Supreme Court seats likely to turn over in the next 4 years.

Republicans have taken millions of dollars from their corporate backers. Now as payback, they're trying to force through judges who will favor those same corporate interests by overturning laws protecting the environment, civil rights, and workers—laws these companies have been trying to get rid of for years.

Keep in mind that a full 90% of Bush's nominees have been approved by the democrats, but the Bushies say this is NOT enough! They have decided they should get everything they want! This is not what the US gov't was set up to do!
[/quote]
Sure this is the first time the legislature threatened overturn 200 years of bipartisan checks and balances. Your favorite Ku Klux Klan senator, Robert Byrd compares the republicans to the Nazis for just trying to get a vote on Bush’s nominees. Oh course Byrd himself used the same tactic in the 70’s when the Democrats had control.

“Sen. Byrd is often credited with pioneering the Senate procedure he now derides as a denial of free speech and a threat to our liberties. Recall that it was Sen. Byrd who led the charge to establish new Senate precedents in 1977, 1979, 1980, and 1987 - including a number of precedents that were designed specifically to stop filibusters and other delay tactics that were previously authorized under Senate rules or prior precedents:
In 1977, Senator Byrd led the establishment of a new precedent in order to break a post-cloture filibuster on a natural gas deregulation bill, stating:
“I make the point of order that when the Senate is operating under cloture, the Chair is required to take the initiative under Rule XXII to rule out of order all amendments which are dilatory or which on their face are out of order." That precedent contravened prior precedent, which would have required the Chair to await a point of order from the floor.
In 1979, Senator Byrd led the establishment of a new precedent that allowed the Chair to rule on questions of germaneness raised during the consideration of appropriations bills - notwithstanding Senate Rule XVI, which states that all questions of germaneness on appropriations bills must be decided by the full Senate.
In 1980, Senator Byrd led the establishment of a new precedent to require an immediate vote, without debate, on any motion to go into executive session to consider a particular nomination. His new precedent was specifically designed, in his words, to "deal with a filibuster on the motion to proceed" to a nomination. Previously, a motion to proceed to a particular nomination was debatable. The new precedent was sustained by a vote of 54-38, and yet the precedent did not “rob a senator of the right to speak out against an overreaching executive branch,” as Sen. Byrd claimed in his op-ed.
In 1987, Senator Byrd caused establishment of a new precedent declaring that certain tactics were to be construed as dilatory during roll call votes and therefore always out of order no matter what - even though the text of the Senate rules had clearly authorized such tactics. Previously, dilatory tactics were out of order only after cloture had been invoked.
And in 1975, the Senate voted three times (51-42, 48-40, and 46-43) in support of the power of a Senate majority under Article I to change the rules. Those precedents forced the Senate to act and led to a major change in the cloture rule.”
So when we count your “200 years of bipartisan checks and balances.” Are they 200 years that are just not in a row?
The only difference between the 70’s and now is in the 70’s the republicans were not smart enough to come up with a catchy phrase like “NUCLEAR OPTION”. Don’t let the facts get in the way of a good argument.

[Scott O]

[quote author=TrailBait link=board=36;threadid=6019;start=0#42720 date=1111782995]
So, why is the govn't going after baseball and the Shiavo's? So you don't notice that the Republicans are attempting to silence the minority forever, exercising more political power than in the entire history of the US government. The Republicans have called it the "nuclear (Nukular) Option."



The "nuclear option" calls for Dick Cheney to use a parliamentary trick to overturn the 200-year-old right to filibuster judicial nominations. A filibuster is simply the right of a group of at least 41 concerned senators to extend debate and delay controversial votes. If Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist can twist enough arms to get 51 votes in support of Cheney's ruling, the minority party will be completely silenced for the first time ever.


***Radical Republicans want absolute power to appoint Supreme Court justices that will favor corporate interests and the extreme right over the rest of us.

***To get it, they plan to use a parliamentary trick they call the "nuclear option" to overturn 200 years of bipartisan checks and balances that have kept the courts fair for centuries.

***After eliminating the right to filibuster, Bush and the Republicans would have absolute, unchecked power over all three branches of the federal government for the first time in American history.

***While the "nuclear option" is likely to come up in a fight over an Appeals Court nominee, make no mistake—the real targets here are the 4 Supreme Court seats likely to turn over in the next 4 years.

***Republicans have taken millions of dollars from their corporate backers. Now as payback, they're trying to force through judges who will favor those same corporate interests by overturning laws protecting the environment, civil rights, and workers—laws these companies have been trying to get rid of for years.

Keep in mind that a full 90% of Bush's nominees have been approved by the democrats, but the Bushies say this is NOT enough! They have decided they should get everything they want! This is not what the US gov't was set up to do!
[/quote]

Complaining will get you nowhere. Why don't you do something about it? Or, you could just read Rych's reply and maybe that'll ease your mind.

[TrailBate]

[quote author=Scott O link=board=36;threadid=6019;start=0#43035 date=1112107984]

Complaining will get you nowhere. Why don't you do something about it? Or, you could just read Rych's reply and maybe that'll ease your mind.
[/quote]

I do. I write my reps/senators/congressman, and I let others know when I see something that I think is going wrong. What else would you like me to do?

As for Senator Byrd, I don't know much about him. The only thing about Rych's reply I can find when I search around is a website where Rych seems to have gotten the exact quote from. I will concede he is correct, without my knowledge of any other facts.

But there is a difference between Byrd's circumstance, and the current one where one party controls the house, senate, and the presidency. Now on top of that, they want to silence the minority. Get one or two more conservatives in the Supreme Court, and the US government is dangerously one-sided.

We've gone to war in Iraq, and tried to set up a government that is fair to all it's citizens, yet we're doing the opposite in our own country.

Instead of sitting by believing your government is doing everything in your best interest, why don't YOU do something about it?

[Mr_Cheeze]

[quote author=TrailBait link=board=36;threadid=6019;start=0#42720 date=1111782995]
So, why is the govn't going after baseball and the Shiavo's? So you don't notice that the Republicans are attempting to silence the minority forever, exercising more political power than in the entire history of the US government. The Republicans have called it the "nuclear (Nukular) Option."



The "nuclear option" calls for Dick Cheney to use a parliamentary trick to overturn the 200-year-old right to filibuster judicial nominations. A filibuster is simply the right of a group of at least 41 concerned senators to extend debate and delay controversial votes. If Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist can twist enough arms to get 51 votes in support of Cheney's ruling, the minority party will be completely silenced for the first time ever.


***Radical Republicans want absolute power to appoint Supreme Court justices that will favor corporate interests and the extreme right over the rest of us.

***To get it, they plan to use a parliamentary trick they call the "nuclear option" to overturn 200 years of bipartisan checks and balances that have kept the courts fair for centuries.

***After eliminating the right to filibuster, Bush and the Republicans would have absolute, unchecked power over all three branches of the federal government for the first time in American history.

***While the "nuclear option" is likely to come up in a fight over an Appeals Court nominee, make no mistake—the real targets here are the 4 Supreme Court seats likely to turn over in the next 4 years.

***Republicans have taken millions of dollars from their corporate backers. Now as payback, they're trying to force through judges who will favor those same corporate interests by overturning laws protecting the environment, civil rights, and workers—laws these companies have been trying to get rid of for years.

Keep in mind that a full 90% of Bush's nominees have been approved by the democrats, but the Bushies say this is NOT enough! They have decided they should get everything they want! This is not what the US gov't was set up to do!
[/quote]

You are just completely wrong on this one. The filibuster has been properly used by legislators to exclusively delay the process of bill making. Until recently, it was NEVER used to block judicial nominees. Go back in history, you'll not find a Democrat appointed judge that was ever blocked in such a manner. Clinton got his. Reagan got his. And so on and so forth. The Constitutional right of the President to appoint judges has never been questioned. The Republican threat to impose the nuclear option is merely to put things back as they should be... to put the judicial nominee up for a Yea or Nay vote. Nothing else need be debated. That's it. Don't like it? Well, then they should shut their festering pie holes and win a god damned election.

When is the Democrat Party going to stop acting like a bunch of losers and do something that might make people want to vote for them? ... like having Hillary run for Oval Office?!? lmao

It's pretty funny that Hillary is doing exactly what her husband did when he first ran for President in 1991. She is giving herself a complete political makeover. Is this what the Democrats need? Because I don't think she's going to fool as many people as Bubba did. She's just way too polarizing a figure.