Need help with repug from another site, I'd like your comments

[caligirl]

"Sorry to burst all of your liberal bubbles, but the 205 out of 215 judges is irrelevant. Nobody votes down the 200 or so minor court judges, it's the appelate's that count. Bush has had 65% of appelate's confirmed, which is the lowest of any president. Before Bush's term, no one has EVER filibustered a judicial nominee. It wasn't even legal until a rule change in 1949. Look, from an objective perspective, there are enough moderate Republicans in the Senate that if their were anything wrong with ANY of the nominees, they would be voted down. When Lincoln Chafee says he will vote for someone, you know they are objuective. Get a grip, you can't rewrite history. But then again, if Dems continue this act, I can't say I'd mind seeing former KKK member Robert Byrd and that murderer Ted Kennedy go the way of chief obstructionist Tom Daschle. I laugh at these protesters for their ignorance."

He is from Illinois. This is posted at College Confidential.

He said this as well,
that's all good for u libs, but seriously filibustering judicial nominees has never in American history been acceptable, but the MSM makes it now

No matter where you stand on this issue, I just want you to know that Frist will probably pull the trigger within a week or so, and Whip McConnell says he has the votes, so have fun hosting your useless protests while watching your silly unintelligent "ideals" go up in flames.

Smirk, Evil Laugh


someone got him on the Kennedy car accident with a comment about Laura, guess he didn't know. and they don't seem to get that this is about paving the way for the Sup.Court nom bush probably has in mind.

[Roland99]

1. Might want to read this from the NY Times

The Not-So-Secret History of Filibusters

By GEORGE J. MITCHELL, former Senate Majority Leader
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/10/opinion/10Mitchell.html

[gratuitous]

2. Your correspondent is wrong

But you knew that. In fact, Haman Frist himself assisted in the filibuster of federal appellate court nominee Richard Paez in 1999:

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=281089

In addition, it was the favored tactic of the Republicans to place "holds" on judicial nominees (Jesse Helms did this over and over again) preventing even a committee hearing on many nominees, so filibusters weren't needed. Also, Republican-controlled committees time and again either failed to pass qualified nominees to a vote of the full Senate or never held hearings on judicial nominees, obviating the need for any filibuster.

Your correspondent is not only wrong, but disingenuous. However, if he's as uninformed as he is demagogic, then he's merely ignorant. And as much as he "hates" to burst liberal bubbles, I rather relish bursting his stupid bubble. The truth will out.

[eleny]

5. Haman Frist - that's going to catch on!

[Career Prole]

3. Tsk, tsk...always the same framing.

They keep saying there's something wrong with the Senate because shrub can't get his picks confirmed.

Tell the repuke there's nothing wrong with the Senate. The problem is shrub's picks.

[converted_democrat]

4. Here's my .02 cents..........

Just out of curiosity have you looked at any of the judges records? Humor me. Find out who the "quota queen" is and why Alberto Gonzales called her an activist judge. Tell me why Gonzales thinks she's to far to the right.The then come back to me and tell me with a straight face that you honestly think this choice is good for the country. Know one likes to be wrong, but the longer you deny the truth, the longer our country suffers.

[AntiCoup2K4]

10. One of Junior's judges was too right wing for Speedy Gonzales??

When even Torture Boy is afraid of a judge, that should tell you something :scared:

Which one was this again?

[converted_democrat]

13. It was Owen

[zbdent]

6. point - Clinton had 61 percent of appelate judges confirmed

he's spouting bushit . . . 61 is less than 65 . . . unless you're a creationist teacher from Kansas . . .

[caligirl]

7. Thank you all, i won't hold my breath for a response from him.

But I did want to set the record straight, and included a link to the Blair memo from the LAT.

[warrens]

8. What an asshole.

The reason Chafee fell in line was he was told that he would not get a DIME from the GOP in his reelection bid. He has historically raised a lot of his money from out of state when he needed it, which was rarely. A lot of RI dems may vote for him in deference to his old man, but that is not the same as giving him money.

Ask your asshat buddy if he ever heard the name Abe Fortas.

The filibuster has been in use in Congress since at least the 1840s.

He's just an ignorant monkey making shit up.

[warrens]

9. Here you go

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20050408.html

That will give you all you need to out him as a liar.

[caligirl]

12. Thanks, i used it to respond to his response which is this:

'Thanks for the support. In response to above criticisms: One person cites a 61% appellate approval. If that is true, that means Bush's approval rating and Clinton's are roughly equal. What's unusual here? BOTH served when Republicans controlled Congress. Clinton faced a majority of the opposing party and got the same amount confirmed as Bush with friendlies. This tells you the effect the filibuster has had, and also that Republicans under the Clinton didn't filibuster. Also one other guy keeps citing facts like "and only 5 out of 20 were rejected by a full vote". This means they died in committee or weren't brought up for a full vote by the party. This doesn't mean ANY of them were filibustered, but that their confirmation died in other legitimate ways. The issue at hand is nominees coming through committees and being unable to get a full vote. This is UNPRECEDENTED. For goodness sake, when Sen. Lincoln Chafee supports the nominees it should be obvious to all of y! ou liberals that the nominee is not some sort of activist religious zealot.'
***************

[caligirl]

11. I got a response from a flaming prolife repug.

"I'm glad your kids are "sweet" because, with all do respect, you are not.

You seem so closed-minded that you are probably to the left of extreme. As an adult, you really have no place on this website other than to politely inform us. Your place is certainly not to criticize our views, as you are not one of "us."

I couldn't care less that Frist has attempted to filibuster in the past. As I previously mentioned, Senator Byrd from WV has changed the laws in the senate to conform to his personal preferences.

As Drumm said, I can't wait till Frist pulls the rug out from under you. Face it: YOU CAN'T DO A SINGLE THING ABOUT IT! NO ONE CARES...NO ONE WANTS TO LISTEN TO YOU.

You can protest all you want, but it will get you nowhere. I'm sorry to burst YOUR bubble, but I think YOU'RE being disingenuous."


My response, and other parents are posting there too.>>>>>>>>>>>>


Bush has done what he set out to, divide and conquer. I didn't provide a point of view but did correct misinformation spewed by republicans from the WH down to college repub clubs. A college student, assuming you are one, should be reading for truth, not propaganda and agendized talking points Karl Rove puts out. If this is not a subject appropriate for this web site than your comments were not appropriate either.

Byrd is the acknowledged master of the senate rules. That you don't like having the facts put out for all to see is just what President Bush has encouraged. And seeing the facts should not cause you to become so devisive. I offered articles to disspell propaganda with no factual basis in truth. Anger is fear based. Turn on cspan2 now and have a look at what Frist and Byrd are saying now.


you opened the door on the killing by car accident and though it may pain you to see this:Mrs. Bush ran stop sign in fatal crash

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) - Details in a 1963 accident report say that Laura Bush, then 17, ran a stop sign in the Texas crash that killed a friend in another car. The report, adding information to previous reports of the crash, was released to The Associated Press on Wednesday. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/e1698.htm


See page 2 and 3 near bottom:
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=59807&page=1&pp=20

[RUMPLEMINTZ]

14. I havn't been here long enough

to start my own thread and I surely don't want to take away from the original poster here but I have a similar problem. I've been argueing with a repuke about the election being stolen and he sent me this.

► No Ohio County used Diebold Electronic Voting Machines (See Press Release Below)

Ohio did not use modern electronic voting machines in this election. Six counties use an older form of electronic voting, which has a means of verifying the accuracy of the vote. In 69 Ohio Counties, punch card ballots were used.

http://ohiodems.org/index.php?display=ReleaseDetails&id=191201

What do I say now? I thought Diebold machines were used in Ohio????