dgskydive 0 #26 November 4, 2004 Quotethey ask me why are Americans so ignorant.......sorry but the truth did hurt at first.....but I can see what they are talking about Are you calling me ignorant? I am not ignorant my friend. I have served almost 10 years in the military and have travled the world. I know that most countries don't like us anymore. Americans aren't ignorant. We are just being Americans. WE have fought for everything we have ever gotten. Including our freedom from the British. Ignorance is killing your own people. Ignorance is sitting back and waiting for things to happen. Like most of Europe does. Ignorance is thinking that things won't happen to you. Ignorance is thinking that if we leave the rest of the world alone they will leave us alone. Ignorance let's terrorists set up shop in your country. Ignorance is thinking you can deal with terrorist like civil people. It's easy to sit back and criticize the US for our actions when most of Europe does nothing. Maybe we where ignorant, right up until Sept. 11th 2001. WHat happened that day? I'll tell you what happened that day. The bear got poked, that's what happened. Now he is awake and protecting himself. If people don't like it, then don't poke the bear.Dom Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #27 November 4, 2004 Oh well, nobody likes the Tough guy on the block. Why do you hate America? It seems clear you do... What caused that? ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Milo 0 #28 November 4, 2004 QuoteQuoteright now I'm far more concerned about the Supreme Court He still needs 5 Dem/Inds and unanimous Republican support to get anyone confirmed (need 60)... it is not a blank check... plus and of the more liberal justices who were considering retirement may now put it off for 4 years... J I wish that were true A simple majority is needed to confirm a Supreme Court Justice. http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/mentions.htm http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761574302/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States.html#s19 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #29 November 4, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteright now I'm far more concerned about the Supreme Court He still needs 5 Dem/Inds and unanimous Republican support to get anyone confirmed (need 60)... it is not a blank check... plus and of the more liberal justices who were considering retirement may now put it off for 4 years... J I wish that were true A simple majority is needed to confirm a Supreme Court Justice. http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/mentions.htm http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761574302/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States.html#s19 Well, you're both half right. It does just take a simple majority to confirm. But it only takes one to start a fillibuster that delays any vote from taking place until 60 vote to end the fillibuster. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #30 November 4, 2004 As PK noted, I was referring what is needed to break a filibuster, which has been an evermore common tactic used to block appointments, particularly during the 1st Bush term. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,587 #31 November 4, 2004 Quotean evermore common tactic used to block appointments, particularly during the 1st Bush term How many judicial appointments were actually blocked? What percentage of the total proposed? Do you have numbers? I'm not talking questioned, I'm talking actually blocked. It's their job to question the judicial appointees. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #32 November 4, 2004 Ever more common? Are you serious? QuoteIn fact, in the last five years of the Clinton presidency, Republicans blocked 20% of the nominees submitted to the Senate. In President Bush's first three years, only 3.4% of judicial nominees have been rejected. Already, the Senate has confirmed thirty Bush circuit court nominees—this is a greater number than President Clinton was allowed in his two full terms in office. http://www.movingideas.org/issuesindepth/judicial.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,587 #33 November 4, 2004 I'm sure that source will be considered suspect. From Looksmart Findarticles I culled the following: "As of mid-2000 the Senate had failed to confirm twenty-six nominations to the Supreme Court, either through an adverse vote or through a refusal to act. According to one study, these twenty-six cases constituted about one-sixth of the nominations that the Senate considered. (70) This proportion of defeats is higher than for any other position to which the president makes appointments. For instance, presidents have made substantially more nominations of cabinet members, but only nine were defeated. (71)" (White House Studies article). According to that article, many judicial appointments never even make it to the confirmation hearings; I'm not the least bit willing to do the research to find out about every possible judicial appointee. However, I'm not about to believe anyone else's unresearched assertion that Bush has had anything close to 17% that made it all the way to the hearings blocked. No matter how you look at it, 3.4% is quite a bit smaller than 17 (or 20) percent. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cloudseeker2001 0 #34 November 10, 2004 I have spent the better part of the day reading about Iraq again and it seems to be more fuck'd than ever. I think we should start pulling our troops out, that may force Iraq to take more of a roll in their own country. What a mess. "Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance, others mean and rueful of the western dream" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shanediver 0 #35 November 10, 2004 QuoteI think we should start pulling our troops out, that may force Iraq to take more of a roll in their own country. What a mess. It is not an option to pull out. It is not that easy. We have a commitment over there, and if we just simply pulled out, it would be nothing but a huge civil war. Talk about a bloodbath! Then who do you think would be right back over there again trying to sort out an even bigger mess? (Did you vote for Kerry?) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cloudseeker2001 0 #36 November 11, 2004 QuoteQuoteI think we should start pulling our troops out, that may force Iraq to take more of a roll in their own country. What a mess. It is not an option to pull out. It is not that easy. We have a commitment over there, and if we just simply pulled out, it would be nothing but a huge civil war. Talk about a bloodbath! Then who do you think would be right back over there again trying to sort out an even bigger mess? (Did you vote for Kerry?) Yes I did vote for Kerry but probably not for the reason you would like to think. And I do not give a damn about Iraqi people, so, hand it over to the UN and start pulling out. We did not help in Bosnia and it was a blood bath and the UN moved in. Oh yea, Bosnia has no oil.......I forgot! "Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance, others mean and rueful of the western dream" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
