|
|
Post by guestvito on Nov 20, 2003 16:30:26 GMT -5
The point is that liberals are the ones who claim THEY are tolerant and point fingers. And my point, which apparently I have to keep repeating, is that if you think "tolerance" means "refraining from criticism" then you don't understand the meaning of the word. Nine times out of ten when a conservative complains about liberal "intolerance" what they're complaining about is really just liberals criticizing conservatives' ideas and actions. You totally miss the point. The issue is not that some Clinton nominees got voted down by the Senate, the issue is that the Republican leadership repeatedly took advantage of senate rules to keep the nominees from coming to a vote, just as the Democrats are using Senate rules to keep nominees they don't like from coming to a vote. If you don't remember this, it's easy enough to find references on the Web. Here's one I pulled up: www.now.org/nnt/fall-2003/judicial.html?printableAs for "unprecedented", the filibuster is something that _I_ would disallow if I were king, but it's a normal part of Senate procedures that both parties have availed themselves of. Are all filibusters unconstitutional or only those conducted by Democrats? For Republicans to claim that there's something special or unusual about _this_ filibuster is sheer, opportunistic special pleading that fools nobody. |
|
|
|
Post by MO on Nov 21, 2003 1:23:04 GMT -5
No, you keep repeating yourself but I fully understand the meaning of the word "tolerance." I don't claim to have much of it. Particularly for your redundancy!  Never before has the senate filibustered federal court nominees. It is unprecedented and many Constitutional scholars would add, unconstitutional. The overall vacancy rate is misleading. The fact is that the democrats have filibustered 25% of the important appeals court nominees. The fact that they are the minority in the senate means that this was not the will of the people but they don't give a damn about the will of the people. on edit- now has no credibility. I will not go to that site. |
|
|
|
Post by vito on Nov 21, 2003 9:19:50 GMT -5
on edit- now has no credibility. I will not go to that site. The pertinent material on that site was not opinion but simple facts that could be found on a dozen other sites. I don't have time to waste cutting and pasting for you. Anyone interested in the truth will have no trouble finding it. Thanks for admitting that right-wingers are intolerant.  PS: thanks for sharing with me some of that good old conservative "compassion" |
|
|
|
Post by Stonewall on Nov 21, 2003 11:11:59 GMT -5
Wow! All of this because of my one little post. I feel so honored!  |
|
|
|
Post by MO on Nov 21, 2003 11:16:48 GMT -5
 I only speak for myself. Most of us just aren't all hung up on the "group think." The numbers can be played with to be sympathetic to either side. The fact is the Democrats are the minority party and are thwarting the efforts of the president and the majority in the senate. They are elitists who don't care that the people have spoken and voted their choices. They are objecting to these judges for purely political reasons. It's all about abortion. The party of death only cares about killing innocent children. They save all their compassion for brutal dictators and violent criminals. |
|
|
|
Post by guestvito on Nov 21, 2003 12:38:20 GMT -5
I only speak for myself. Most of us just aren't all hung up on the "group think." Exactly my point about liberals as well. Glad to see you admit that there is another side, with evidence to support it. The day the Republicans forswear ever using the filibuster and similar methods when they are the minority party is the day that argument will impress me. The forefathers were wise enough to realize that sometimes the majority should NOT always get what it wants. I'm sure a decisive portion of those who voted for Republican senators in 2002 were NOT voting to have right-wing ideologues installed in lifetime federal appointments. It's because a single election is not a plebiscite on every individual issue that the Senate has rules like the filibuster. I think there could be better ways to do things, but those are the rules and they do serve a purpose. Your own numbers make the case for me: If the dems are blocking 25% of the appeals court nominations, that means that there are 75% that they aren't blocking. If Bush made his nominations with an eye to the "bipartisanship" that he is always yammering about there wouldn't be a problem here. And Bush isn't playing politics with anti-abortion nominations? Okay, whatever you say. hmmm. I wonder which party would have more of a record of showing "compassion for brutal dictators" over the past century. hmmmm. Gosh, that's a toughie. |
|
|
|
Post by questvito on Nov 21, 2003 17:20:56 GMT -5
Liberal Intolerance = oxymoron.
The only tolerance practiced on this planet is by the left. All right wing regimes, especially the BUSH regime, are tolerant only of those who march in goose step with their dictates.
Peace and tolerance belongs only to the left and saints like Carter and Mother Theresa will carry the peace torch.
Thank GOD for peace loving leaders like Gephart, Daschle, Byrd and all those who will bring down the Bush/Halliburton CABAL.
|
|
|
|
Post by vito on Nov 21, 2003 17:26:19 GMT -5
This is the real vito. Please note that posts that have recently appeared by "questvito" have nothing to do with me. I have posted as "vito" or, when I am too lazy to log in, as "guestvito". I will no longer be doing the latter as it is clear that someone is trying to take advantage of it. My apologies to the administrators and members of this board for leaving myself open to this.   |
|
