Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Russ is up on C-SPAN 2!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
JackBeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-06-06 01:43 PM
Original message
Russ is up on C-SPAN 2!
Give 'em hell!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
acmejack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-06-06 01:44 PM
Response to Original message
1. Thanks for the heads up
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
burythehatchet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-06-06 01:44 PM
Response to Original message
2. thanks, been wating for him
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackBeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-06-06 01:45 PM
Response to Original message
3. Says it's making gays and lesbians feel like 2nd class citizens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackBeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-06-06 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Two loving people should be allowed to enter into this contract,
regardless of sex.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-06-06 01:48 PM
Response to Original message
5. Oh Yes
Go for it Russ... He is the man....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackBeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-06-06 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
6. Talking about how religious institutions don't have to
recognize same-sex marriages in Mass., debunking the talking point that same-sex marriages would force churches to recognize them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avalux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-06-06 01:57 PM
Response to Original message
7. He's dissecting the amendment -
Edited on Tue Jun-06-06 01:57 PM by sparosnare
The language of the amendment is ambiguous - the people behind the amendment itself are not in agreement on which way to go. It wouldn't stand up to challenges by states. In other words, it's garbage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackBeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-06-06 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. You beat me too it. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cspanlovr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-06-06 01:58 PM
Response to Original message
8. I love him..Run Russ, Run!
"I want to bear his child!"...Lola Heatherton
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-06-06 01:59 PM
Response to Original message
10. I love Russ Feingold!
What a smart, intelligent, handsome, well-spoken man. So different from what we have occupying the White House right now.

The country would be so much better off if Feingold were President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackBeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-06-06 02:03 PM
Response to Original message
11. David Vitter: I stand in strong support of this amendment.
:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-06-06 02:11 PM
Response to Original message
12. David Vitter (A-LA): Someone needs to give this asshole a Tabasco enema!
He is so proud and honored to support the amendment, one that makes discrimination and bigotry a part of our Constitution.

Where in the f*ck do these people come from?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-06-06 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. he made the argument against divorce, not gay marriage!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-06-06 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. He must have done that after I tuned him out.
I got so sick of listening to him, I had to take a break! After hearing how proud he was to support this amendment, blah blah bullshit blah, I couldn't listen any longer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bdamomma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-06-06 02:16 PM
Response to Original message
14. Orrin Hatch is on now
did I miss Feingold, now I hope everyone is calling their senators and telling them this whole Federal Marriage thing is a not a Constitutional thing, it should be a state thing.

Geez, Orrin shut the hell up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Synnical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-06-06 02:29 PM
Response to Original message
16. Feingold's comments from his website
http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/06/06/20060606.htm

As Prepared for Delivery from the Floor of the U.S. Senate

June 6, 2006

Mr. President, the Constitution of the United States is an historic guarantee of individual freedom. For over two centuries it has served as a beacon of hope, an example to people around the world who yearn to be free and to live their lives without government interference with their most basic personal decisions. I took an oath when I joined this body to support and defend the Constitution. I am saddened, therefore, to be once again debating an amendment to our Constitution that is so inconsistent with our Nation's history of expanding and protecting freedom.

There are serious issues facing this Congress -- the war in Iraq, health care, high gas prices, relief and recovery after Hurricane Katrina, the economy. These are the issues on which the American people are demanding that Congress act. But instead, we are spending much of this week debating this poorly thought out, divisive, and politically motivated constitutional amendment that everyone knows has no chance of success in the Senate.

The proposed constitutional amendment before the Senate today, S. J. Res. 1, has no better chance of getting a two-thirds majority in the Senate than it did in 2004, another election year. There are no new court decisions that supporters of the amendment can legitimately argue make it any more imperative now than it was then that such an amendment be passed. Yet the Judiciary Committee was ordered to mark up this amendment to fit a schedule announced by the Majority Leader months ago.

This is pure politics, an election year gambit. Mr. President, we should not play politics with the Constitution. Nor should we play politics with the lives of gay and lesbian Americans who correctly see this constitutional amendment as an effort to make them permanent second class citizens.


Much more at link
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 02:36 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC