RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


Kennedy, other Dems say what they want without challenge.(32 posts)

Kennedy, other Dems say what they want without challenge.94Nole
Nov 14, 2003 1:58 PM
Why can The Philanderer stand on the floor of the Senate abd refer to judicial nominees as 'neanderthals' and not receive any backlash from any major media outlets?

Do you think if a Republican had uttered this word referring to judicial nominees that it would be brought to the attention of the American people and likely ended the career of the poor sap who would stand there and say such a thing?

I just can't stand the double standard.
did he really call these women "neanderthals"?DougSloan
Nov 14, 2003 2:07 PM
Judicial nominees (from left) Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and Carolyn Kuhl in the Oval Office of the White House.
Wow. The poster children for judicial tyranny . . .czardonic
Nov 14, 2003 2:15 PM
. . . and coercive government actually posing for a poster.
Naw, he was talking about the guy in the middle...............nmMR_GRUMPY
Nov 14, 2003 2:24 PM
The Democrats won this battle. . .czardonic
Nov 14, 2003 2:13 PM
. . .and to the victor goes the media's deference.
I don't think we'll know who won until next November... (nm)DJB
Nov 14, 2003 2:14 PM
Maybe not the war, no. (nm)czardonic
Nov 14, 2003 2:15 PM
no mercy for Democrats if...DougSloan
Nov 14, 2003 2:43 PM
If Bush is re-elected and Republicans control 60 seats, it would serve the Democrats right if every single judicial nominatee is the equivalent of Clarence Thomas or William Rehnquist. Maybe we'll see all the conservative justices and judges resign just so they can be replaced with 35 year old even more conservative judges to serve for another 40 or 50 years each.

Democrats are going to have some payback for this, and I hope it isn't pretty for them. Even if they take the Whitehouse, good luck getting *any* judges appointed.

Doug
Now there is a constructive attitude. (nm)czardonic
Nov 14, 2003 2:49 PM
less constructive than denying a vote? nmDougSloan
Nov 14, 2003 2:56 PM
Much less. (nm)czardonic
Nov 14, 2003 2:58 PM
Hey, wait, Doug: THIS is the payback..Cory
Nov 14, 2003 2:49 PM
I mentioned this in a post above, but yours slipped in while I was writing it. Check your history--the Dems have filibustered to stop just FOUR of Bush's 172 nominees. That's what this whole conservative tantrum is about. At the same point in Clinton's first term, the GOP was blocking 50 of his candidates, almost 40 percent. Somehow Orrin Hatch doesn't ever bring that up....
Also, just in passing, your emphasis on revenge instead of a sound judiciary seems a little petty. As a practicing liberal, I'd certainly welcome a solid, impartial candidate even if he or she were conservative. It's just the Neanderthals that make me nervous.
Do you mean, the same luck the Clinton judges had?MR_GRUMPY
Nov 14, 2003 8:55 PM
Lets see....... Bush had how many judges blocked ?????????
Do you know how many of Clinton's judges were blocked ?? Look it up, before you start crying about those mean Democrats.
Do you know how many of Bush's judges were approved ? Look it up.
The 'war' won't be over next November. (nm)DJB
Nov 17, 2003 11:24 AM
The Dems lost--all but 2% of Bush's Neanderthals got throughCory
Nov 14, 2003 2:44 PM
It gets lost amid all the Republican screeching, but as of yesterday, 168 of Bush's 172 nominees had gotten through. All this posturing was over four people, just 2 percent of his picks. He's since added two more Neanderthals, from California, so maybe it's up to 3 percent now.
At the same point in Clinton's term, the Republican congress had approved only 61 percent of HIS judicial nominees, blocking about 50 people.
there you go bringing up Clinton againDougSloan
Nov 14, 2003 2:54 PM
A key difference is that under Clinton, the Republicans had a majority of the Senate. They could each have been easily voted down. Now, the Democrats are holding up the vote, with a minority effectively controlling the confirmations.

Also, Clinton installed more than 373 judges. http://www.eagleforum.org/court_watch/nominations.shtml

Doug
There is a reason the minority has this power.czardonic
Nov 14, 2003 3:06 PM
It is to keep a Senate majority from colluding with the Executive branch to stack the Judiciary with partisan ideologues.

Checks and balances.
But it's 98 PERCENT, Doug. What would satisfy you?Cory
Nov 14, 2003 4:44 PM
Clinton had eight years to do it; Bush is still in his third. That's a red herring.
But you're dodging the issue. The nation's being treated to a GOP tantrum because TWO PERCENT of Bush's nominees didn't get confirmed. Meanwhile, health care and all the other vital issues that should be settled before adjournment were ignored. If 168 out of 172 doesn't satisfy you, what would you settle for? Should it be a straight rubber stamp? Don't involve the legislative branch at all? Or what?
Cory, you don't understand. It's 100 percentOldEdScott
Nov 17, 2003 6:56 AM
or nothing with these people. You can't satisfy 'em with less. In all my years in politics, including radical politics, I've never seen such a bunch of commissars.
Disingenuous argument! It's apples to oranges ...HouseMoney
Nov 14, 2003 3:11 PM
I see you're doing a good job of parroting the Liberal line. Resorting to name-calling as the basis for your argument is a dead giveaway, too. The distinction between your examples is clear, but explaining it to you would surely go over your head.
Evidentally, you are a Liberal. (nm)czardonic
Nov 14, 2003 3:20 PM
Glad you're back!moneyman
Nov 14, 2003 3:42 PM
Thought some tragedy may have befallen you. That or you got insulted and ran off. Anyway, you're back. We needed to add some spice to the board.

You, czardonic, are a habanero.

$$
Thanks for the warm welcome. (nm)czardonic
Nov 14, 2003 4:26 PM
Why is it OK to call them "Neanderthals?"moneyman
Nov 14, 2003 3:40 PM
Their legal credentials are impeccable. The only problem that the Dems have is their ideology. But because they disagree with the Dems, they are labeled "neanderthal?" And you use the term as well, which is really below your usual respectable argument. Somehow, it doesn't seem fitting.

$$
Perhaps hyperbolic, perhaps apt.czardonic
Nov 14, 2003 4:40 PM
If their ideology intrudes on their rulings, than it is well within the Senate's purview to judge them based on it. These judges have made their ideology part of their legal credentials.

As for "Neanderthals", if it was a concious attempt to compare legal opinions to neanderthal behavior, than it seem apt, if hyperbolic, to me. Isn't dragging a woman off by her hair and forcing her to bear children and perform domestic duties the classic characterization of the Neanderthal? The rulings of at least one of these judges (Owen) attempt to acheive similar goals by more modern (if not more civilized) means.
Because under definition 2 on this pageOldEdScott
Nov 17, 2003 8:12 AM
from the Cambridge dictionary, it is an entirely appropriate descriptive:

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=53135&dict=CALD
WTF "without challenge?" It's all over the newsSilverback
Nov 14, 2003 8:25 PM
Don't know what "major" media outlets you're watching, but I heard him get hammered today by Fox (naturally), ABC, CBS, CNBC and NPR. Probably got it on NBC, too, but I didn't happen to catch that. Associated Press moved a whole package on it, which will be in papers all over the world tomorrow. "Double standard" is pure conservative BS. Who ignored it? Who didn't report it? Where'd YOU find out about it? From somebody who was there, or a major media outlet?
The Big LieOldEdScott
Nov 17, 2003 6:51 AM
Silverback, let's just face facts: Conservatives LIE. There, I said it. Their whole public case is based on falsehoods so massive that we're just reduced to sputtering and never effectively rebut.

Of COURSE the comment was reported widely. It's just the usual conservative BS to howl 'liberal media bias,' which they usually do not in the presence of any such liberal bias, but in the ABSENCE of a conservative bias. In their formulation, the simple act of not delivering 'news' like Sean Hannity on acid is 'liberal media bias.' Anything short of devoting the entire half-hour of CBS evening news to calling for Kennedy's removal from office would be too panty waist for them , hence 'liberal media bias.'

The judicial appointment thing is just insane. Condiering how few Bush appointments are being blocked, and how many Clinton appoitments were blocked, any objective observer would conclude that the Dems are rolling over like lame sheep. But no: To conservatives, it's perfectly OK and justifiable to block dozens of liberal Dem appointments, but damn near if not in fact TREASON to block even a tiny number of Reactionry Republican appointments.

Sheesh. The audacious lies and sheer hypocricy of the right are just beyond belief.

'Serves 'em right,' indeed.
There are differencesLive Steam
Nov 17, 2003 8:43 AM
Clinton's nominees were voted down. The Dumocrats aren't even allowing a vote. You know probably better than anyone that the Republicans can and will use this against the Dems in the next election, and it will be powerful. The nominees the Dems are blocking are minorities and women. Not very smart on their part. This will have avery negative effect for you guys, in my opinion. The Dumocrats are coming off as very partisan, to the American people, and it will reflect in the vote.
Hell, Steam, we'd allow a vote too if we were in the majorityOldEdScott
Nov 17, 2003 8:51 AM
and knew we could just vote 'em down, the way the Repubs did. You use the weapons you have, for God's sake. Don't be disingenuous.

I don't believe the American people care all that much either way, but to the extent that anyone pays attention, it's damaging to block minorities and women, I agree. Sometimes, though, a nomination is so rank you just HAVE to say, Naw, this is too odious, we'll just take the hit.
OldEd, I am sure that you would not agree, but...94Nole
Nov 18, 2003 5:33 AM
following is a sincere question.

Why did Trent Lott get effectively kicked to the curb for his comments when Kennedy doesn't receive any reprimand for his? Heck, Lott was the headline news for what? two or more weeks until he was forced by the negative press to step down as Majority Leader? When Kennedy uses the word neanderthal, those on the left (Czar, specifically above) start looking for alternative definitions of the word to help it apply in some sort of an appropriate manner.

Those same comments uttered by anyone on the right side of the aisle would certainly have brought an effective, if not an actual, end to his or her political career.

I can't imagine that Orrin Hatch or any other Repub leader would be anywhere near the Senate or House had he been a former member of the KKK.

These are the things that I really do not understand and where I find a large double standard. Call it media bias, call it what you want. It is certainly a double standard. We all have heard and read about (from the rightwing media outlets) Al Gore, Sr. throughout the election and how he was opposed to the civil rights legislation, but yet Al, Jr. isn't held to the same standard that Arnold is when he is forced to answer questions about his father's past and fight off questions regarding remarks he may have made in his life. And AG, Sr. was a US SENATOR!!!

I just don't get it. Actually, I do get. And so does the growing majority of Americans as evidenced by the continued fall of the Democrat empire in every election. Ignorance and leftist brainwashing only works now for the small minority of the educated public who, somehow, really believe what the left is selling and to the poor uneducated and uninformed saps that vote democrat because grandma, grandpa, mama and daddy were all democrats and they will go to their graves before they would vote for a Repub.

The word is definitely out and the wave is growing. Will a Republican majority, large enough to make the Democrats and the left impotent be good for America? I don't know the answer to that but I would like, just once in my lifetime, to see that happen and experience the effects myself rather than the "sky is falling" forecast of what the media and others on the left would have us believe. Has Rush, et al. had an effect on the minds and hearts of the American people? There is no doubt. There is a light at the end of the tunnel and it is a train.

This country has evolved from one that was very conservative in its infancy and agreed, not all of our history is a shining example of how people should be treated, but we are currently headed in a wrong way in many aspects. Anyone who denies that is fooling him/herself. I shutter to think of the world in which my grandchildren will grow up.
I LUV the train reference for obvious reasons :O)Live Steam
Nov 18, 2003 6:43 AM
Ed gets it. That is why he is so depressed. He understands that we no longer have to peek behind the curtain to catch a glimpse of the wizard. The curtain has been flung aside and the wizard is now exposed.

Let the Dumocrats play their nasty games. Let the mainstream media play along too. Most people see it for what it is and their party is suffering as a direct result. It wasn't Clinton that brought this about. It was brought about by alternative media sources like Fox News and conservative talk radio. People are now able to hear a different side of the story and can judge for themselves which are more plausible. Prior to this, all we had was Dan Rather, Peter Jennings and Commie News Network (CNN).

It is apparent to everyone including the Dumocrats that they are toast for quite a while and their is no one on the horizon that can save them. The Witch certainly isn't their answer either. She bring back too much negativity and sameness to their party. They should move on if they ever want to be relevant again. That is why I call them "Dumocrats". They just don't get it!

This is just my opinion of course :O)