Perfect crystallization of what's wrong with the Democrats

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ramo

Obviously clueless as well considering my summation was not a RESPONSE but moreover a paraphrasing of the article.

Duh. You need to work on your English comprehension skills.

Response - a written or spoken retort.

editorial of yours - Doesn't really exist now does it. I do however have my written paraphrasing of a NYPost editorial

not the same as:

NYPOST Editorial - Property of NyPost and written by Podhoretz. Not MY editorial.

Try stem cells maybe they can replace a few of those dead brain cells.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Ramo 1 - Ogie 0

Sory, Ogie, it's a crap editorial.

You are of course entitled to your opinion wrong as that may be.

[Ramo]

Because my brain cell dying one, its talking to fillibustering in general regardless of whether the topic is executive calendared items or legislative items. But nice try at the parsing.

No, brain cell dead one, the point is that the argument makes absolutely no sense wrt judicial nominations (and nominations in general). Absolutely none. Which is what Frist's proposal is about.

Regarding counter proposals: Any make the press? Any Dem leader go to the floor with a counter proposal? Hiding behind the facade that "I'm sure they have ideas no one listens" is laughable. Do they have ideas maybe who knows, but they sure don't have the guts to lay them out on the table.

How 'bout, like the vast majority of nominees that DO get through? Folks like them. You do realize how absurd your argument is that the Dems do nothing but obstruct judicial nominees without positive suggestions, when the vast majority of judical nominees sail through the Senate without a filibuster?

While technically true, Voinovich & Hagel going wobbly was not of their own accord. Dem pressure and the success in the polls made these two spineless.

You realize that Hagel's from Nebraska, don't you? Unlike most Republicans, he actually has some integrity. Voinivich might have been motivated by electoral concerns, though. Still don't see how this has a single thing to do with the filibuster.

Well then, rather than being the spineless cowards they are they need to get them on the table. But my guess is Joe Q Public isn't gonna like to hear the need for SS tax increases, no?

And back in 1994 it was common knowledge the repubs were working on the contract with America and was the basis of that election year.

The Contract With America was about government reform, not a comprehensive health care agenda (and generally avoiding policy). I guess the GOP were too spineless to have a real health care debate.

Loverly, could you work up your ire a bit more, the hackery wasn't quite thick enough to cut with a knife.

Nice job totally missing the point. Notice what I was quoting?

Response - a written or spoken retort.

editorial of yours - Doesn't really exist now does it. I do however have my written paraphrasing of a NYPost editorial

not the same as:

NYPOST Editorial - Property of NyPost and written by Podhoretz. Not MY editorial.

Try stem cells maybe they can replace a few of those dead brain cells.

In this context, the response referred to the editorial. Duh. It's rather pathetic that you're arguing with me over this point. Shows how badly you've been pwned on substance.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ramo


How 'bout, like the vast majority of nominees that DO get through? Folks like them. You do realize how absurd your argument that the Dems do nothing but obstruct judicial nominees is without positive suggestions, when the vast majority of judical nominees sail through the Senate without a filibuster?

Great some have common ground. Whoop di freakin doo. Has there been any suggestion along grounds of the advise portion of their responsibilities for specific counter candidates for ones objectionable. (not that anyone can bring them to debate in the first place to find out the supposed reason they are objectionable) Nope not one.

And where pray tell have I said Dems do nothing but obstruct judical nominees. (Point of the matter is they obstruct all kinds of things without meaningful alternatives offered. )

You realize that Hagel's from Nebraska, don't you? Unlike most Republicans, he actually has some integrity. Voinivich might have been motivated by electoral concerns, though. Still don't see how this has a single thing to do with the filibuster.

Big picture time. Obstructionism be it via fillibuster, the ultimate obstructionist practice, or otherwise without meaningful alternative.

And back in 1994 it was common knowledge the repubs were working on the contract with America and was the basis of that election year.[/q]

The Contract With America was about government reform, not a comprehensive health care agenda (and generally avoidn policy). I guess the GOP were too spineless to have a real health care debate.

Big picture time part 2. Contract with America was supposedly about reducing the governments size and role in America. Part and parcel of that meant no nationalized health care system.

Loverly, could you work up your ire a bit more, the hackery wasn't quite thick enough to cut with a knife.

Nice job totally missing the point. Notice what I was quoting?

Sure but Podhoretz hackery doesn't even come close to yours.

Response - a written or spoken retort.

editorial of yours - Doesn't really exist now does it. I do however have my written paraphrasing of a NYPost editorial

not the same as:

NYPOST Editorial - Property of NyPost and written by Podhoretz. Not MY editorial.

Try stem cells maybe they can replace a few of those dead brain cells.

In this context, the response referred to the editorial. Duh. It's rather pathetic that you're arguing with me over this point. Shows how badly you've been pwned on substance.

An editorial I may point out that is not MINE.

In the context of One Trick Pony responses tho' the monicker is all yours with the patented Ramo "Your source is a right wing hack job site" style response.

[Ramo]

Great some have common ground. Whoop di freakin doo. Has there been any suggestion along grounds of the advise portion of their responsibilities for specific counter candidates for ones objectionable. (not that anyone can bring them to debate in the first place to find out the supposed reason they are objectionable) Nope not one.

I'm sure there have been. I'm not privvy to correspondence between Reid and Dear Leader. Do you have any legitimate reason to think that the Democrats aren't pushing moderate replacements for extremist nominees, considering moderate nominees sail through the Senate? Any at all?

Big picture time. Obstructionism be it via fillibuster, the ultimate obstructionist practice, or otherwise without meaningful alternative.

Really ****ing Obvious Time. I'm sure the Democrats would love to pick who would be the UN Ambassador. Do you seriously think that they have no preferences? You really think that some of the moderates in State (like Armitige) haven't been pushed by the Dems? Your hackery is impressive.

I find it astounding that you're saying there's no meaningful alternative to John Bolton.

Big picture time part 2. Contract with America was supposedly about reducing the governments size and role in America. Part and parcel of that meant no nationalized health care system.

Really ****ing Obvious Time Part 2. That's not a specific alternative. If that's a "solution," the Democrats have a far more extensive solution for SS.

Sure but Podhoretz hackery doesn't even come close to yours.

The difference is that my sentence wasn't meant to be taken seriously. It was poking fun at how much of a hack Podheretz is (and thus, you, for posting it).

An editorial I may point out that is not MINE.

No ****. That wasn't meant to be taken literally. Christ, you're dense. As I said, that you're arguing over this, shows how badly you've been pwned on substance.

[Ramo]

Your theory for Democratic behavior simply doesn't make sense. At all. If they were simply obstructionists to Bush's nominees, there wouldn't be a 95% confirmation rate. If 95% of Bush's nominees are tolerable to Senate Democrats, why shouldn't the Dems push for the other 5% to be replaced by moderates? You're attributing an absurd behavior to the Dems, not grounded in reality, and whining about said behavior.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ramo


I'm sure there have been. I'm not privvy to correspondence between Reid and Dear Leader. Do you have any legitimate reason to think that the Democrats aren't pushing moderate replacements for extremist nominees, considering moderate nominees sail through the Senate? Any at all?

Why should I or for that matter anyone in the electorate? Absence of action is more telling then promises and hints of things that might be done or said.

Really ****ing Obvious Time. I'm sure the Democrats would love to pick who would be the UN Ambassador. Do you seriously think that they have no preferences? You really think that some of the moderates in State (like Armitige) haven't been pushed by the Dems? Your hackery is impressive.

I find it astounding that you're saying there's no meaningful alternative to John Bolton.

Actually I suspect if and when Bolton is fillibustered down. Dubya will pick a second equally frightful candidate to force the issue. The Senate majority repubs may have little spine but Dubya won't back away as evidenced by him holding to the 10 judges.

Really ****ing Obvious Time Part 2. That's not a specific alternative. If that's a "solution," the Democrats have a far more extensive solution for SS.

You really are clueless of course it was and is. Keeping the health care private is and always was a viable option.

As for the Demonrats alternative to SS, they refuse to put any details out because the chicken****s know it either means cutting benefits and losing AARP support or increasing SS taxes. Yum either way. Let the repubs do all the heavy lifting and handle that big pile of festering doo.

The difference is that my sentence wasn't meant to be taken seriously. It was poking fun at how much of a hack Podheretz is (and thus, you, for posting it).

Considering your historical use of histrionics, your post was not out of character. How would I know you were just 'joking'?

No ****. That wasn't meant to be taken literally. Christ, you're dense. As I said, that you're arguing over this, shows how badly you've been pwned on substance.

Substance?

Let me know the next time you post substance, it will be a first in this ongoing conversation.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ramo
Your theory for Democratic behavior simply doesn't make sense. At all. If they were simply obstructionists to Bush's nominees, there wouldn't be a 95% confirmation rate. If 95% of Bush's nominees are tolerable to Senate Democrats, why shouldn't the Dems push for the other 5% to be replaced by moderates? You're attributing an absurd behavior to the Dems, not grounded in reality, and whining about said behavior.

Ohhh please, the 95% figure is so bogus. It's the appelate judges that matter and you know it.

Myth vs. Fact
Myth: The Senate has confirmed an overwhelming percentage of President Bush’s
judicial nominees; therefore it is not problematic that a Democratic minority has blocked
10 nominations from receiving a floor vote.
Fact: President Bush has the lowest first-term appellate confirmation record of any
modern President.
While Democrats claim they have confirmed more than 200 of President Bush’s judicial
nominees, 10 of the 52 nominees to the circuit court of appeals were filibustered. (Jesse J.
Holland, “Senate Confirms First Judge Of Bush’s Second Term,” The Associated Press,
4/11/05)
President Bush’s confirmation rate for appellate judges is the “lowest” of any modern
president. “A better figure would compare Bush’s four-year appellate confirmation rate
to recent presidents. According to the American Enterprise Institute’s John Lott Jr.,
Bush’s four-year rate was 69 percent, the lowest of any modern president. Bill Clinton’s
rate was 74 percent.” (David Reinhard, Op-Ed, “Judge Not Lest Ye Be … Filibuster,”
The Oregonian, 3/17/05)

[Ramo]

Why should I or for that matter anyone in the electorate? Absence of action is more telling then promises and hints of things that might be done or said.

What absence of action? The vast majority of Bush's nominees sail through the Senate. Even the super-majority of circuit cout appellate nominations sail through the Senate.

Actually I suspect if and when Bolton is fillibustered down. Dubya will pick a second equally frightful candidate to force the issue. The Senate majority repubs may have little spine but Dubya won't back away as evidenced by him holding to the 10 judges.

It's questionable that he'll make it through committee or even an up and down vote.

You really are clueless of course it was and is. Keeping the health care private is and always was a viable option.

Appaarantly not as clueless as you. Keeping Social Security as it is, is a viable option for this Congress and the next one, and the next one. Things'll only have to change in 40 or 50 years when the surplus dries up. At which point 70% of benefits could be funded, or taxes would be raised.

And a legitimate argument could be made that health care reform is absolutely necessary, and can't wait half a century. Hell, the Republican Congress passed and a Republican President signed the prescription drug benefit.

As for the Demonrats alternative to SS, they refuse to put any details out

So the Rethugs can stew in their own political disaster.

because the chicken****s know it either means cutting benefits and losing AARP support or increasing SS taxes. Yum either way. Let the repubs do all the heavy lifting and handle that big pile of festering doo.

Most people support raising the income cap on SS. So it's politically viable. What they're doing is a little strategory to prevent SS from being privatized and win the '06 election.

Considering your historical use of histrionics, your post was not out of character. How would I know you were just 'joking'?

Coming from the guy who posts hack NYP editorials.

Anyways, the way you know is common sense. See what I was quoting. Generally, it helps to follow an argument.

Ohhh please, the 95% figure is so bogus. It's the appelate judges that matter and you know it.

Now you're arguing appelate justices only? That's horse****. Bolton isn't being nominated as an appelate justice.

Secondly, Clinton's second-term confirmation rate for appelate justices was far lower than the first-term. It's absurd to compare the least obstructionist Clinton term to Bush's term.

Thirdly, if a 69% confirmation rate constitutes negative obstructionism, surely a 74% confirmation rate constitutes negative obstructionism. So you've pwned yourself.

[Drake Tungsten]

Ever time I hear a conservative claims the LA Times is a lefty paper I can't help but laugh.

Well, I'm a moderate saying that the LA Times is a ****ty paper...

You realize that Hagel's from Nebraska, don't you? Unlike most Republicans, he actually has some integrity.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Well, I'm a moderate

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ramo

Appaarantly not as clueless as you. Keeping Social Security as it is, is a viable option for this Congress and the next one, and the next one. Things'll only have to change in 40 or 50 years when the surplus dries up. At which point 70% of benefits could be funded, or taxes would be raised.

Fine by me. Privatization likewise would be a viable option. Its just a shame the Dems want nanny state to prevent individuals from actually having a say in their retirment investments.

Yay for the government of the government and for the government. But then again you've always been in favor of unions holding the purse strings on pensions too, so go figure.

And a legitimate argument could be made that health care reform is absolutely necessary, and can't wait half a century. Hell, the Republican Congress passed and a Republican President signed the prescription drug benefit.

One of the primary reasons I refused to vote for Dubya.

As for the Demonrats alternative to SS, they refuse to put any details out

So the Rethugs can stew in their own political disaster.

This answer truthful and reflective of my same answer below

because the chicken****s know it either means cutting benefits and losing AARP support or increasing SS taxes. Yum either way. Let the repubs do all the heavy lifting and handle that big pile of festering doo.

Most people support raising the income cap on SS. So it's politically viable. What they're doing is a little strategory to prevent SS from being privatized and win the '06 election.

This answer is a Ramo dreamy dream land answer.

BBBBRINGGGG! Alarm clock. Wake up sleepy head.

Considering your historical use of histrionics, your post was not out of character. How would I know you were just 'joking'?

Coming from the guy who posts hack NYP editorials.

I wouldn't mind this so much if it weren't for the complete lack of originality. You'ld think a college kid would eventually get a new line or meme.

Where's the inspiration? Almost all your insults are merely copies of mine. You can do better my insipid uninspired friend.

If your not going to give new material, this will get old quite quickly. As I indicated before, give me something to work with, something of substance, challenge as that may be for you.

Anyways, the way you know is common sense. See what I was quoting. Generally, it helps to follow an argument.

Why should I consider common sense to come into play considering the general lack you have shown in your entire history of posting?

Ohhh please, the 95% figure is so bogus. It's the appelate judges that matter and you know it.

Now you're arguing appelate justices only? That's horse****. Bolton isn't being nominated as an appelate justice.

Why are you even mentioning Bolton? The quotation I gave you made no mention of it. It referered to judicial nominees.

Secondly, Clinton's second-term confirmation rate for appelate justices was far lower than the first-term. It's absurd to compare the least obstructionist Clinton term to Bush's term.

Puhlease again. By that time GOP was majority in Senate. Actually under rules of majority would have struck Clintonian appointees down without Minority obstructionist practices. The fact they held them up in comittee vs. giving them an up/down vote was immaterial and if truth be told more expeditious for actual senate business.

Thirdly, if a 69% confirmation rate constitutes negative obstructionism, surely a 74% confirmation rate constitutes negative obstructionism. So you've pwned yourself.

I never said it didn't. It might have very well been obstructionist as well, and as I said, much of the obstuctionist tactics the Repugs did, caused me drop from the Repub party and go indie.

So sorry. I hope you didn't pwn yourself too hard. Might have to put some ice on that.

[Ramo]

I never said it didn't. It might have very well been obstructionist as well, and as I said, much of the obstuctionist tactics the Repugs did, caused me drop from the Repub party and go indie.

Dude, the original thesis of the Post article was that while the Democratic opposition is obstructive, the Republican opposition was constructive. Thanks for confirming that it's indeed crap, thus definitely pwning yourself, and ending this idiotic argument.

Why are you even mentioning Bolton? The quotation I gave you made no mention of it. It referered to judicial nominees.

I was referring to all nominees. Because you thought Bolton was somehow relevant to this argument. Then you constrained this to appellate nominations, and I was asking why.

Puhlease again. By that time GOP was majority in Senate. Actually under rules of majority would have struck Clintonian appointees down without Minority obstructionist practices. The fact they held them up in comittee vs. giving them an up/down vote was immaterial and if truth be told more expeditious for actual senate business.

Puuhhhleeese yourself. You were the one claiming obstructionism is obstructionism - see Bolton held up in Committtee. What hypocrisy.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ramo

I never said it didn't. It might have very well been obstructionist as well, and as I said, much of the obstuctionist tactics the Repugs did, caused me drop from the Repub party and go indie.

Dude, the original thesis of the Post article was that while the Democratic opposition is obstructive, the Republican opposition was constructive. Thanks for confirming that it's indeed crap, thus definitely pwning yourself, and ending this idiotic argument.

No the entire thrust of the Post arguement was that while the Repubs were obstructionist they also posited a new agenda of reform. Something the Dems have as always failed to do. Nice try at reframing it tho'. NOT.


I also refer you back to my original summation of the article:

Summation:

Difference today vs. yesteryear when the evil Repugs fillibustered, obstructionism only has long term benefits if followed by the minority party with ideas/proposals of their own.

The fact was they the repubs were obstructionist a point I objected to and in fact pointed out.

Why are you even mentioning Bolton? The quotation I gave you made no mention of it. It referered to judicial nominees.

I was referring to all nominees. Because you thought Bolton was somehow relevant to this argument. Then you constrained this to appellate nominations, and I was asking why.

Point of the matter was I never raised the issue of Bolton at all 'cepting within the context of the original Post article. YOU otoh felt the need to make issue of it whereupon I responded in Berz-like fashion in a point by point response. The matter of appelate judges IS the overriding concern as the higher the court appointment the larger the import. And please don't try to act cute or shocked shocked I tell you that this is news.

Puhlease again. By that time GOP was majority in Senate. Actually under rules of majority would have struck Clintonian appointees down without Minority obstructionist practices. The fact they held them up in comittee vs. giving them an up/down vote was immaterial and if truth be told more expeditious for actual senate business.

Puuhhhleeese yourself. You were the one claiming obstructionism is obstructionism - see Bolton held up in Committtee. What hypocrisy.

If you don't see the difference in a minority obstructionist tactic and will of the majority being observed thats your problem.

One uses guile to its effect, while the other has the force of majority requiring the executive to plan and compromise accordingly.

[Ramo]

What the hell does the "agenda for reform" have to do with judicial nominations? The answer is nothing. Thus, the Post article is retarded.

If you don't see the difference in a minority obstructionist tactic and will of the majority being observed thats your problem.

As I said earlier, the Senate ain't a majoritarian body. Otherwise, California and New York would swamp the piddly ass Republican states in the midwest. You can ***** all you want, but them's the rules for the body. Killing a nomination in a Committee with Republican over-representation ain't that different from killing it with a filibuster. Killing a nomination with a blue slip - under Hatch's rules (during the Clinton adminstration only) any Senator from the state of the judicial nominee can block the nomination - which happened fairly often, is far, far more antimajoritarian than the filibuster. Fact this, the nuclear option is a reckless power grab, nothing less.