What I hope the GOP does now

[TheAnvil 0]

Most interesting, Sir John. Cute, in fact. Perhaps next time you should try reading my post prior to responding to it. Then again, perhaps you actually did read it but not carefully.

Or perhaps in my current state of disgust I'm not thinking clearly. Let's examine my thought process and see if that is indeed the case.

- I call for the GOP not to 'Bork' President-elect Obama's Cabinet nominations. How, exactly, is that a bad thing? Granted, anyone with a three digit IQ would be able to recall the Democrats and their response to President Bush's nominations and think 'fucking idiots' about your beloved party, but as I stated - a President should be able to nominate the Cabinet of his choice. Don't you want a non-Bork-esque nomination process for President-elect Obama, John?
- I call for a floor vote for all judicial nominees - just as I did under President Bush. Please, dear John, by all means tell us how that's being partisan against the newly elected President? Perhaps it's that your utterly embarrassed - rightfully so - by the actions of the Democrats under President Bush and yearn for Republicans to reciprocate in kind by making utter fools of themselves? Is that it, Sir John?
- I want workers to retain the right to a secret ballot when voting for unionization in the workplace. Do you not respect that right, Sir John? Do worker's rights mean little or nothing to you, perhaps?
- I desire freedom of speech on the air-waves. Should advertisers be forced to pay for programming content with which they disagree, Sir John? Would you think the ACLU would agree, Sir John?
- I don't believe achievement should be punished. Do you, Sir Kallend?
- Do you believe that more government in gov't schools would be a good thing? Given their smashing success as compared with other nations? By all means, Sir John - please tell us how I'm being partisan and thwarting the 'will of the people' here.
- Please, dear Kallend, enlighten us on how nuclear power and drilling for oil on our own lands would be a bad thing. Quite eager to hear your thoughts, old boy.

Please, Dear John, enlighten us as to your own thought processes on these rather simple matters.

Yours in disgust, and one HOT DAMNED SEXY BIATCH,

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Granted, anyone with a three digit IQ would be able to recall the Democrats and their response to President Bush's nominations

Then I assume you remember that over 97% were approved.
But I can't remember exactly how many of Clinton's picks were held up in committee. I think it was over 60.

Quote

- I call for a floor vote for all judicial nominees - just as I did under President Bush. Please, dear John, by all means tell us how that's being partisan against the newly elected President? Perhaps it's that your utterly embarrassed - rightfully so - by the actions of the Democrats under President Bush and yearn for Republicans to reciprocate in kind by making utter fools of themselves?

Nuclear option? Schiavo? Middle of the night roll call votes? Ignoring voting time limits and holding them open until a colleague is beaten down and agrees to change his vote? Hiding committee meetings in secret and excluding the minority from attending because they're not part of "the coalition of the willing"? Taking the gavel and walking out of a committee meeting that you're chairing because you don't want to debate the issue at hand? Unilaterally changing bills after they've been approved by committee? Approving torture? Repeated record earmarks, some of which were made anonymously? Freedom Fries?....and that's the short list. Who made fools of themselves?

Sorry dude, I was going to let the original rant slide due to your sad state of mind after the election. But you've had time to get over the shock and I'm beginning to worry that you actually don't remember the last 8 years. Revisionism isn't the road to recovery

[rushmc 23]

So, instead of dealing directly with his post you drift so as not to deal with it?


So, if you read his points in the post you replied to answer me this, with which do you disagree?

Specific points in that one post one by one, which ones do you not agree with?

Here, I will even re-post them and number them

Quote

1- I call for the GOP not to 'Bork' President-elect Obama's Cabinet nominations. A President should be able to nominate the Cabinet of his choice. Don't you want a non-Bork-esque nomination process for President-elect Obama, John?
2- I call for a floor vote for all judicial nominees - just as I did under President Bush.
3- I want workers to retain the right to a secret ballot when voting for unionization in the workplace. Do you not respect that right,
4- I desire freedom of speech on the air-waves. Should advertisers be forced to pay for programming content with which they disagree, Sir John? Would you think the ACLU would agree, Sir John?
5- I don't believe achievement should be punished. Do you, Sir Kallend?
6- Do you believe that more government in gov't schools would be a good thing? Given their smashing success as compared with other nations?
7- Please, dear Kallend, enlighten us on how nuclear power and drilling for oil on our own lands would be a bad thing. Quite eager to hear your thoughts, old boy.

Now, I removed some of the comentary but I still wonder, If I would support these points for the Pres elect is that a bad thing?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[TheAnvil 0]

The revisionist here appears to be you, by dodging my questions and redirecting.

My 'anyone with a three digit IQ' comment referred to Cabinet nominations. The Dem's Borking was goat-fuck stupid and should have been an embarrassment to them. You obviously didn't want to discuss that. Ashcroft ring a bell? I recall GWB's Cabinet nominees and the Dem response. You apparently don't.

I do call for a floor vote for all Judicial nominees. Again here, the Borking - in particular of appellate court nominees - was absurd and should embarrass those who took part. Pickering ring a bell? How about opposing a nominee because he's Hispanic? But you don't want to discuss that, do you?

Vice address my points, you then listed some foolish things some republicans did (I assume so; hadn't heard of some of them) to embarrass themselves. Threatening the 'nuclear' option to force a floor vote isn't embarrassing to them in my book, rather to the Dems for holding one up for a judicial nominee (see above).

Now - how about actually addressing my points. And for the record, my disgust at morons embracing Karl Marx over Adam Smith isn't going away.

[barf]

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Most interesting, Sir John. Cute, in fact. Perhaps next time you should try reading my post prior to responding to it. Then again, perhaps you actually did read it but not carefully.

Irony score 9.5 ( a good attempt at diversion got you a -0.5 point bonus).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[idrankwhat 0]

I want to respond to you and Marc and I'll do so later. My son's Dr's' appointment and parent/teacher conference takes priority. Sorry.
But I'll leave you with this quote:
The President . . . shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law. . . .
(Article II, Section 2, Clause 2)

Contrary to recent interpretation, it's not "advise and consent". Consent is not mandatory. If the Senate consents to the nomination, then the Pres can appoint. If they don't consent, he can't.
As for the nominee, political ideologues are not good candidates for judicial nomination.

Just out of curiosity, what did you think about how the Harriet Miers nomination was handled?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

I want to respond to you and Marc and I'll do so later. My son's Dr's' appointment and parent/teacher conference takes priority. Sorry.
But I'll leave you with this quote:
The President . . . shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law. . . .
(Article II, Section 2, Clause 2)

Contrary to recent interpretation, it's not "advise and consent". Consent is not mandatory. If the Senate consents to the nomination, then the Pres can appoint. If they don't consent, he can't.
As for the nominee, political ideologues are not good candidates for judicial nomination.

Just out of curiosity, what did you think about how the Harriet Miers nomination was handled?

So you are claiming the Obama will make all the right choices? He will not use idology to make choices?

Or are you saying your idology matches his and since he was elected by the people he should get to choose?


(this will bring an interesting answer)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

So you are claiming the Obama will make all the right choices?

Nope. And I don't expect him to but I'm not the one calling him the Messiah. He seems like a person who thinks through his choices before he makes a decision, which I think is a good thing.

Quote

He will not use idology to make choices?

Sure. I'm guessing he'll factor in his ideology and temper it with the reality that he's still presiding over a split electorate. I don't expect him to abuse the recess appointment process nor do I expect him to basically tell 48% of the country "you lose! Sucks to be you! I'm the decider! Get over it!" Of course I could be wrong. I mean there IS precedent.

Quote

Or are you saying your idology matches his and since he was elected by the people he should get to choose?

Of course he gets to choose. But his choices will not come to fruition unless the Senate consents. Them's the rules.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

The revisionist here appears to be you, by dodging my questions and redirecting.

I wasn't dodging any questions. I was throwing a wrench into what I perceived to be more of a Dem bashing exercise than the mission statement that the thread implied. It's difficult to dig the questions out of a partisan tourettes tirade. Some of the finer points get lost. I basically was able to cull out "I expect the R's to not be goat fucking, moronic, turd brained fuckwads". Not much of a platform if you ask me.

Quote

My 'anyone with a three digit IQ' comment referred to Cabinet nominations. The Dem's Borking was goat-fuck stupid and should have been an embarrassment to them. You obviously didn't want to discuss that.

You're right. I don't want to re-hash that topic. That's what the "search" function is for. The only reason to bring it up would be to participate in a Dem bashing exercise. I also don't want to talk about Clinton's BJ either.

Quote

Ashcroft ring a bell? I recall GWB's Cabinet nominees and the Dem response. You apparently don't.

I don't really want to talk about this either but do you think that the Dems were right about Ashcroft? I'd say so. He was a lousy AG with regard to representing the people but he only looks good because his successor was one 6 short of the anti-christ. (That's called hyperbole)

Quote

I do call for a floor vote for all Judicial nominees. Again here, the Borking - in particular of appellate court nominees - was absurd and should embarrass those who took part. Pickering ring a bell?

Yea, and again, Bush scored with 97% of his picks. Not getting 100% is not "thwarting the will of the people". Congress had a 1% advantage to one side. That doesn't mean you get to ignore 49%.

Quote

How about opposing a nominee because he's Hispanic? But you don't want to discuss that, do you?

So the Dems have a race problem? Kind of an ironic statement, especially this week.

Quote

And for the record, my disgust at morons embracing Karl Marx over Adam Smith isn't going away.

[barf]

That's a nifty sound bite but again I'll assert that Adam Smith would not hold up the last decade as positive model. However I don't recall his views on the upward redistribution of wealth so I could be wrong.
I wonder if he even considered using taxpayer money to pay for bonuses for failed business leaders. He may have, but I'll bet it made beer shoot out of his nose.

[TheAnvil 0]

Ahh! You DON'T want to discuss it. I see.

Wealth is earned - not distributed. Deal with it.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

So you are claiming the Obama will make all the right choices?

Nope. And I don't expect him to but I'm not the one calling him the Messiah. He seems like a person who thinks through his choices before he makes a decision, which I think is a good thing.

Quote

He will not use idology to make choices?

Sure. I'm guessing he'll factor in his ideology and temper it with the reality that he's still presiding over a split electorate. I don't expect him to abuse the recess appointment process nor do I expect him to basically tell 48% of the country "you lose! Sucks to be you! I'm the decider! Get over it!" Of course I could be wrong. I mean there IS precedent.

Quote

Or are you saying your idology matches his and since he was elected by the people he should get to choose?

Of course he gets to choose. But his choices will not come to fruition unless the Senate consents. Them's the rules.

So, if the R's pull the same crap the D's did you will not complain!

Very cool.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Ahh! You DON'T want to discuss it. I see.

Wealth is earned - not distributed. Deal with it.

You've got some seriously strange ideas as to what "earned" means.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Ahh! You DON'T want to discuss it. I see.

Wealth is earned - not distributed. Deal with it.

You've got some seriously strange ideas as to what "earned" means.

HE has some strange ideas???

Holy shit man, or should it be comrad?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

So, if the R's pull the same crap the D's did you will not complain!

Very cool.

I can live with a 97% approval rate.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

HE has some strange ideas???

Holy shit man, or should it be comrad?

Ok, you tell me. Which bank executives deserve a taxpayer funded bonus? Which stockholders deserve a taxpayer funded dividend from a failed bank?
If you consider that "earning" money as opposed to wealth distribution then I have no idea what to say.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

HE has some strange ideas???

Holy shit man, or should it be comrad?

Ok, you tell me. Which bank executives deserve a taxpayer funded bonus? Which stockholders deserve a taxpayer funded dividend from a failed bank?Neither, and I have stated on this site many times the bailout is fucked up
If you consider that "earning" money as opposed to wealth distribution then I have no idea what to say.

But if you support Obamas plan then you are worse than what you post you hate.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Quote

HE has some strange ideas???

Holy shit man, or should it be comrad?

Ok, you tell me. Which bank executives deserve a taxpayer funded bonus? Which stockholders deserve a taxpayer funded dividend from a failed bank?Neither, and I have stated on this site many times the bailout is fucked up
If you consider that "earning" money as opposed to wealth distribution then I have no idea what to say.

But if you support Obamas plan then you are worse than what you post you hate.

Why don't you respond to his questions? Which bank executives deserve a taxpayer funded bonus? Which stockholders deserve a taxpayer funded dividend from a failed bank?

And I'll add one of my own. Which CEOs deserved a taxpayer funded junket after their company was rescued?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

HE has some strange ideas???

Holy shit man, or should it be comrad?

Ok, you tell me. Which bank executives deserve a taxpayer funded bonus? Which stockholders deserve a taxpayer funded dividend from a failed bank?Neither, and I have stated on this site many times the bailout is fucked up
If you consider that "earning" money as opposed to wealth distribution then I have no idea what to say.

But if you support Obamas plan then you are worse than what you post you hate.

Why don't you respond to his questions? Which bank executives deserve a taxpayer funded bonus? Which stockholders deserve a taxpayer funded dividend from a failed bank?

And I'll add one of my own. Which CEOs deserved a taxpayer funded junket after their company was rescued?

I did. And he has yet to answer Anvils or mine.

Late to the game now arent you?

Read the thread and catch up befor you post please

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

HE has some strange ideas???

Holy shit man, or should it be comrad?

Ok, you tell me. Which bank executives deserve a taxpayer funded bonus? Which stockholders deserve a taxpayer funded dividend from a failed bank?Neither, and I have stated on this site many times the bailout is fucked up
If you consider that "earning" money as opposed to wealth distribution then I have no idea what to say.

But if you support Obamas plan then you are worse than what you post you hate.

Personally I think that the bank executives that are involved in the bailout should give back their last year's salary, exercised stock options and bonuses. I understand that letting the banks fail could be very bad, but any plan that doesn't include accountability is incomplete.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

HE has some strange ideas???

Holy shit man, or should it be comrad?

Ok, you tell me. Which bank executives deserve a taxpayer funded bonus? Which stockholders deserve a taxpayer funded dividend from a failed bank?Neither, and I have stated on this site many times the bailout is fucked up
If you consider that "earning" money as opposed to wealth distribution then I have no idea what to say.

But if you support Obamas plan then you are worse than what you post you hate.

Personally I think that the bank executives that are involved in the bailout should give back their last year's salary, exercised stock options and bonuses. I understand that letting the banks fail could be very bad, but any plan that doesn't include accountability is incomplete.

Agreed

And those that proposed the bail out (including Bush) should be held acountable.

But taking money from those that work and giving it to those that dont is dead fucking wrong

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

HE has some strange ideas???

Holy shit man, or should it be comrad?

Ok, you tell me. Which bank executives deserve a taxpayer funded bonus? Which stockholders deserve a taxpayer funded dividend from a failed bank?Neither, and I have stated on this site many times the bailout is fucked up
If you consider that "earning" money as opposed to wealth distribution then I have no idea what to say.

But if you support Obamas plan then you are worse than what you post you hate.

Why don't you respond to his questions? Which bank executives deserve a taxpayer funded bonus? Which stockholders deserve a taxpayer funded dividend from a failed bank?

And I'll add one of my own. Which CEOs deserved a taxpayer funded junket after their company was rescued?

I did. .

As someone mentioned yesterday, you seem to have amnesia about what you have (and have not) posted.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

HE has some strange ideas???

Holy shit man, or should it be comrad?

Ok, you tell me. Which bank executives deserve a taxpayer funded bonus? Which stockholders deserve a taxpayer funded dividend from a failed bank?Neither, and I have stated on this site many times the bailout is fucked up
If you consider that "earning" money as opposed to wealth distribution then I have no idea what to say.

But if you support Obamas plan then you are worse than what you post you hate.

Why don't you respond to his questions? Which bank executives deserve a taxpayer funded bonus? Which stockholders deserve a taxpayer funded dividend from a failed bank?

And I'll add one of my own. Which CEOs deserved a taxpayer funded junket after their company was rescued?

I did. .

As someone mentioned yesterday, you seem to have amnesia about what you have (and have not) posted.

Please all knowing one, where have I ever stated I supported the bailout or anyone that proposed it.

I have a memory ploblem?

I also stated or agreed with the post that the execs should not get the money. Which goes alon with the opinon they should have not gotten the money to begin with

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

HE has some strange ideas???

Holy shit man, or should it be comrad?

Ok, you tell me. Which bank executives deserve a taxpayer funded bonus? Which stockholders deserve a taxpayer funded dividend from a failed bank?Neither, and I have stated on this site many times the bailout is fucked up
If you consider that "earning" money as opposed to wealth distribution then I have no idea what to say.

But if you support Obamas plan then you are worse than what you post you hate.

Personally I think that the bank executives that are involved in the bailout should give back their last year's salary, exercised stock options and bonuses. I understand that letting the banks fail could be very bad, but any plan that doesn't include accountability is incomplete.

Agreed

And those that proposed the bail out (including Bush) should be held acountable.

But taking money from those that work and giving it to those that dont is dead fucking wrong

How does the amount of welfare paid to poor people who are lazy and worthless compare with the nearly $1Trillion redistributed to Wall Street?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Quote

A couple things I hope they DO:

- I hope they filibuster to the death any legislation that would enact the following:

- Universal healthcare

I know its knit-picky, but I can't reconcile in my own mind how someone could put their very life on the line for America's citizens and yet be against universal healthcare. It just doesn't make sense to me.

Because that same person can realize that the idea of universal healthcare is much better than what the reality would be.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

HE has some strange ideas???

Holy shit man, or should it be comrad?

Ok, you tell me. Which bank executives deserve a taxpayer funded bonus? Which stockholders deserve a taxpayer funded dividend from a failed bank?Neither, and I have stated on this site many times the bailout is fucked up
If you consider that "earning" money as opposed to wealth distribution then I have no idea what to say.

But if you support Obamas plan then you are worse than what you post you hate.

Personally I think that the bank executives that are involved in the bailout should give back their last year's salary, exercised stock options and bonuses. I understand that letting the banks fail could be very bad, but any plan that doesn't include accountability is incomplete.

Agreed

And those that proposed the bail out (including Bush) should be held acountable.

But taking money from those that work and giving it to those that dont is dead fucking wrong

How does the amount of welfare paid to poor people who are lazy and worthless compare with the nearly $1Trillion redistributed to Wall Street?

Sir kallend

YOUR party is for FURTHER bail out along with the spinless R's that are supporting it too! It is not about money it is about nationalizing the private sector even further

but.

I was, am and will be against the bail out.
So stop changing the fucking topic and see if you can aswer any of the questions asked above.

Or is trully showing your positions something you cant do

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln