myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Windsurfing Videos Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
the big lie "the media is liberal"
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 110, 111, 112 ... 136, 137, 138  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 1638
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Fri Nov 22, 2013 6:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

swchandler wrote:
NW30, there's no question that Republicans in the Senate have abused the filibuster in frightful and unprecedented ways. Majority Leader Reid warned them earlier in the year that things were being driven too far, and as a consequence, that rules of the Senate would be changed if the filibuster tactic was abused further. It just proves that Reid wasn't kidding. The way that I look at it, the Republicans have been asking for it, and their record of patent obstruction proves it.

Okay, you and Dan agree, you basically said what Dan said.
That still doesn't make what Reid did acceptable, the Repubs may have abused the filibuster, your and Dan's chosen word. But I say that Reid just abused the senate rules, by changing them, rules set up by our forefathers.
So take your pick on which abuse is worse. I say the latter is far worse, not even close. The Repubs were just exercising their legal right, for the reasons mentioned in my previous post.
It's childish, "it's not fair, I'm changing the rules!!!". Playground logic.

_________________
I don't drink the 'cool' aid, I drink tequila, it's more honest.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5122

PostPosted: Fri Nov 22, 2013 8:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The "reasoning" of the right:

Quote:
whether it's constitutional or not


Can you find some constitutional reference for the procedural rules of the Senate? Of course you can't. Rules are made so we play nice. If you don't play nice, guess what--there are consequences. But listen to the piggies squeal! Only Republicans get to shut down the government!
Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 5761

PostPosted: Fri Nov 22, 2013 8:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NW30, perhaps you're forgetting, the filibuster rule isn't in the US Constitution, so changing it doesn't run against law. Moreover, you should recognize that Senate rules have changed in the past for different reasons. Regarding the filibuster, it used to be that a filibuster required non-stop on the floor speech by those using it. Now, given present rules, it's much too easily for the minority party to obstruct progress, and what does that accomplish?

Should I be concerned that the minorities' rights are be infringed? It might be of more concern if Reid's 51% majority rule change affected legislation, but it doesn't. As a result, it only impacts judicial nominations, other than Supreme Court nominees, and administrative nominations. The rule change improves the business of government and ensures an adequate judiciary to maintain a critical facet of government. Now, if those nominated by the Executive Administration are highly suspect and worthy of close scrutiny, members of the Senate still have the right to review and question the nominee. Afterward, an up or down vote should be sufficient to determine an outcome.

Frankly, it's time for responsibility, governing, and less screwing around. You might not like the fact that you lost the presidential elections in both 2008 and 2012, but that's the stark reality you must live with.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5122

PostPosted: Fri Nov 22, 2013 9:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Boy, you guys make it easy. Like shooting ducks in a barrel. NW says no problem with Obama judicial appointees, the answer is simple:

Quote:
Easy, just appoint worthy people


Oh, you mean like this one:

Quote:
The US president, George Bush, today nominated White House counsel Harriet Miers, his former personal lawyer, to the supreme court.
The appointment of Ms Miers, who replaces retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, could reshape the United States' judiciary for years to come.

Mr Bush reached into his loyal inner circle for his choice of Ms Miers, a decision that sidesteps the political brawl that Democrats and Republicans had been bracing for. Ms O'Connor has been a critical swing vote on the court on abortion and other divisive issues. Democrats feared that if President Bush named a conservative, the balance of the nine-member court could shift.

But it is difficult to predict how Ms Miers would shape the top US court. She has never been a judge, so she has no written legal opinions subject to scrutiny.


or these:

Quote:
The nomination of White House lawyer Brett Kavanaugh to serve on the D.C. Court of Appeals was never likely to quell the partisan divide caused by the Bush administration's choice of judicial nominees.

But when Kavanaugh told the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday that the administration does not consider ideology when selecting its nominees, he appeared to escalate the politics of the controversy.

"It defies belief for anyone who looks at the nominees ... to think ideology did not play any role," said New York Senator Charles Schumer, a Democrat.

"It is plain as the nose on your face, sir, that the nominees ... come from one side of the political spectrum," Schumer said. "You are denying the obvious."

Kavanaugh is in a unique position to know -- the 39 year-old lawyer served as White House associate counsel and played a key role in helping choose and vette potential nominees.

Many of those nominees have drawn the ire of Democrats who accuse the Bush administration of trying to pack the appeals courts with right wing ideologues.


Right wing idealogues are ok. Moderate appointees by Obama are not. Now I understand.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bajaDean



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 878
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Fri Nov 22, 2013 9:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

techno900 wrote:
bajadean,

So I guess your biggest gripe is not with the media, but with the federal agents. Do you think this is a partisan issue, a bunch of right wind agents?

All I was doing was pointing out that your post
Quote:
Note you do not see this one front pages of every newspaper of even the broadcast media...
was way off reality.


no the media did not put in he was in favor of testing welfare as I noted, the ones you listed seemed to not want to include that information. Yes there are many ways you can slant favoritism even in your articles as a partisan right wing owner of the media.


And of course the federal enforcement positions are in general right wingers. Just like hollywood is in general liberals. Yes I would have fired all the federal prosecutors when I took office like has been done for all the presidents I am aware of. These hacks were not fired by Obama, a huge mistake, Bush and Rove were so agressive in the federal prosecutors that they even fired the ones they appointed that would not make the vote fraud investigations and charges as high of a priority as being a terrorist. again these fired federal prosecutors did testify under oath about this yet Rove and Bush would not.

A fact that came from these hearings were that The Rovian in-justice department investigated close to 6 to one dems over right wingers. As ordered by the administration. and this was when we had the largest politcal contributor to Bush, enron going bankrupt for theft and NO independent council investigation. Again the Enron jets were flying the Bush people all over for the florida recount.

Largest money political corruption in the history of the US of 70 million dollars was not a investigation that was started by the rovian in-justice even though it was well known in washington and they did not get the others that were getting their free lunches. Dukester investigation was stopped at just him though the federal prosecutor wanted to go after much more related to it, but was mysteriously removed from the case. Instead they were doing set ups on dems and only got one who put 50k in a freezer. Vs the 10s and hundred million dollar ones that were out there. again 6 to one and they got one dem when many other right wingers were never investigated.

so these puke partisan in competent prosecutors were never replaced.

_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.


Last edited by bajaDean on Fri Nov 22, 2013 10:22 pm; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bajaDean



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 878
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Fri Nov 22, 2013 9:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevenbard wrote:
youwindsurf wrote:
stevenbard wrote:
And furthermore, fuck the judges. They are the ones who've screwed this whole thing up...


Care to elaborate?


Obama has fired over 200 top military officers over the last few years. Purged any opposition. He is now going to pack the courts with socialist and progressive judges. When you add a neutered media, the dye is cast.

This is how Hitler came to power. Democratic elections and well placed judges were key to Hitler's rise to power. I'd estimate that we are only in the mid 1920's on this scale. It will take between 10-15 years before they completely run us into the ground.

A careful study of world history leads me to these conclusions.


first thing I would do as a dem is send a letter for resignations first day of taking office. It would be to every right wing federal bureaucracy, from secret service, NSA, FBI, Military every branch, drug, you name it. All of these are so permeated with right wing haters of americans my letter would be as such.

If you hate americans specially of the party that just won the election you have no right to be paid for your services, I expect your resignation in the morning and you will be replaced as soon as possible. This includes defense contractors, if you hate americans that won stop taking the contracts.

_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 14037

PostPosted: Fri Nov 22, 2013 9:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Our local McClatchey newspaper says the end of the filibuster will increase open dialogue in the Senate.

SURELY the fallacy in that needs no explanation.

When I first heard of a "filibuster" decades ago, I was aghast that decisions were allowed to be affected by such childish shenanigans. Then I read up on the history, intent, and function of the filibuster in the Senate and realized how absolutely necessary it is in a legislative body not apportioned according to population.

Then the are the livid, scathing, speeches of Obama, Reid, and Biden AGAINST abolishment of the filibuster.
Reid, May 18, 2005: "[The founding fathers] established a government so that no one party can have total control".
Obama and Biden went farther, calling it anti-American and more, in their condemnation of the "nuclear option".

Until now, that is, when Obama's ability to "Transform America" legislatively has been destroyed by his undeniable incompetence. Now his only chance is to pack the federal courts with left wing whackos who will give the EPA the power to dictate his policies without congressional oversight; the IPAB the power to make far more life or death health care decisions for anyone, especially seniors; cap & trade, carbon taxes, nationalization and partial theft of our life's savings (those plans are reportedly under consideration, as they were before the GOP took Bill Clinton by the short and curlies); and anything else this wannabe dictator wants ... AS HE SAID HE WANTED TO DO IF HE COULD GET THE LEGAL CONSTRAINTS OUT OF THE WAY.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 5761

PostPosted: Fri Nov 22, 2013 10:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Until now, that is, when Obama's ability to "Transform America" legislatively has been destroyed by his undeniable incompetence. Now his only chance is to pack the federal courts with left wing whackos who will give the EPA the power to dictate his policies without congressional oversight; the IPAB the power to make far more life or death health care decisions for anyone, especially seniors; cap & trade, carbon taxes, nationalization and partial theft of our life's savings (those plans are reportedly under consideration, as they were before the GOP took Bill Clinton by the short and curlies); and anything else this wannabe dictator wants ... AS HE SAID HE WANTED TO DO IF HE COULD GET THE LEGAL CONSTRAINTS OUT OF THE WAY."


WOW!!!! I bet he was really out of breath after saying all that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 1638
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Fri Nov 22, 2013 10:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac, it's not just judicial appointees, it's way more than that.
Are you into another game of ping pong?
Van Jones for instance, a prime example of a crap attempt, and then there was the time he tried to appoint people during a recess that was not in recess, that worked out pretty well.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A federal appeals court ruled on Friday that President Barack Obama violated the U.S. Constitution when he used recess appointments to fill a labor board, a decision that could curtail the president's options in filling vacancies.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/25/us-usa-obama-appointments-idUSBRE90O0TG20130125

Always trying to skirt the rules, SOP, it's become a classic theme of this administration.

But I guess all is fair in love and war, right?
Not in my world.

_________________
I don't drink the 'cool' aid, I drink tequila, it's more honest.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DanWeiss



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 1930
Location: Connecticut, USA

PostPosted: Fri Nov 22, 2013 11:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nw30 wrote:

Okay, you and Dan agree, you basically said what Dan said.
That still doesn't make what Reid did acceptable, the Repubs may have abused the filibuster, your and Dan's chosen word. But I say that Reid just abused the senate rules, by changing them, rules set up by our forefathers.
So take your pick on which abuse is worse. I say the latter is far worse, not even close. The Repubs were just exercising their legal right, for the reasons mentioned in my previous post.
It's childish, "it's not fair, I'm changing the rules!!!". Playground logic.


Our forefathers? Like the Founders? Exactly who did you have in mind?

Since the earliest days of our Consitutional government until 1917, the only way to end a filibuster was for the filibustering Senator to pass out, or quit.

The Senate's procedural rule regarding cloture votes was established in 1917 to end a filibuster regarding ratification the Treaty of Versailles. The super-majority aspect 66/7 absolute votes for cloture did not apply. Only a super-majority of the Senators _present_ was required and, therefore it was possible that when most Senators were absent a very low number was required. Note that cloture was never achieved until the early 1960s despite around a dozen attempts.

It was not until 1975 that a hard-number majority was required. So, no matter how few Senators were hanging around the floor, any motion for cloture required 60 votes (adjusted for vacant seats).

So to say that the procedural rule is some holy vessel of Constitutional balance is greatly misinformed.

edited for clarity only

_________________
Support Your Sport. Join US Windsurfing!
www.USWindsurfing.org

www.konaone.com


Last edited by DanWeiss on Sun Nov 24, 2013 10:08 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 110, 111, 112 ... 136, 137, 138  Next
Page 111 of 138

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group