Sen. Kerry calls for filibuster of Alito

[gldstwmn]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/26/alito/index.html

Unclear if Massachusetts Democrat has votes needed to block nominee

Thursday, January 26, 2006; Posted: 4:23 p.m. EST (21:23 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. John Kerry has decided to support a filibuster to block the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, CNN's Congressional Correspondent Ed Henry reported Thursday.

Kerry, in Davos, Switzerland, to attend the World Economic Forum, was marshaling support in phone calls during the day, Henry said.

He announced his decision Wednesday to a group of Democratic senators, urging they join him, Henry said. Kerry also has the support of his fellow Massachusetts senator, Democrat Edward Kennedy.

Some senior Democrats said they are worried that the move could backfire.

Republicans need 60 votes to overturn a filibuster.

Senior White House officials said the move makes the Democrats look bad, and Republicans already have enough votes to overcome any filibuster attempt.

[SuzeQuze]

Can I get a HELL YEAH!!! Making us "look bad" is bullsh*t. It's that kind of thinking that has had the D party whimpering with its tail between its legs for too long! Now y'all write your senators telling them how much you support the fillibuster!

[The Tower]

Fukc those stupid republicans and fukc that piece of **** Alito.

Filibuster that motherfukcer!!!!

[stargazer99]

Fukc those stupid republicans and fukc that piece of **** Alito.

Filibuster that motherfukcer!!!!

Unfortunately, I don't think it's going to happen. Alito has picked up at least 2 democrat votes -- Byrd (WVa) is one. I can't remember the other, and I can't find the article right now. And Reid is being a wuss -- he's said they won't fillibuster.

The Dems have no balls. We're not going to win back seats this year at this rate. They're letting every opportunity slip through their fingers because they are a bunch of wimps who back down at the first sign of a Republican attack on them.

[DavidMn]

Go for it. Who knows, stranger things have heppened.:nod:

[gldstwmn]

Unfortunately, I don't think it's going to happen. Alito has picked up at least 2 democrat votes -- Byrd (WVa) is one.

They need 60 votes for cloture. Snow, Collins, possibly Stevens and Chafee should all vote with the Dems. Just because a senator votes for Alito, it doesn't mean they have to vote for cloture, either. This is going to be very interesting. The cloture vote comes at 4:30 pm Monday.

[Rickypt]

Unfortunately, I don't think it's going to happen. Alito has picked up at least 2 democrat votes -- Byrd (WVa) is one. I can't remember the other, and I can't find the article right now. And Reid is being a wuss -- he's said they won't fillibuster.

The Dems have no balls. We're not going to win back seats this year at this rate. They're letting every opportunity slip through their fingers because they are a bunch of wimps who back down at the first sign of a Republican attack on them.

Agree 100% with all of this. Tim Johnson and Ben Nelson are the other two who are supporting Alito. Nelson is a Republican wearing Dem clothes who is running for president.

Sadly, my first reaction to this thread was god, couldn't it please be somebody besides Kerry. He is just such a bad leader and I don't think will inspire your average person to take much notice.

It needs someone like Feinstein, a moderate who is on Judiciary Committee and would just say "look, Dems are pro-choice, and this guy's answer on whether Roe is settled law was enough to justify doing anything to stop his nomination".

I'm really down on Dems these days. Pelosi has been awful recently and even said at a local town hall meeting that she doesn't support an investigation into the wire-tapping issue. With "leaders" like these.....

That said, good for Kerry and I wish him luck.

[Rickypt]

They need 60 votes for cloture. Snow, Collins, possibly Stevens and Chafee should all vote with the Dems.

Snowe and Collins have already said they won't filibuster. They are both good on some key issues, but at the end of the day, they are Republicans.

[stargazer99]

Agree 100% with all of this. Tim Johnson and Ben Nelson are the other two who are supporting Alito. Nelson is a Republican wearing Dem clothes who is running for president.

Sadly, my first reaction to this thread was god, couldn't it please be somebody besides Kerry. He is just such a bad leader and I don't think will inspire your average person to take much notice.

It needs someone like Feinstein, a moderate who is on Judiciary Committee and would just say "look, Dems are pro-choice, and this guy's answer on whether Roe is settled law was enough to justify doing anything to stop his nomination".

I'm really down on Dems these days. Pelosi has been awful recently and even said at a local town hall meeting that she doesn't support an investigation into the wire-tapping issue. With "leaders" like these.....

That said, good for Kerry and I wish him luck.

I agree about Kerry being the one to step up. Kerry leading this effort doesn't give me much confidence! I think he's stepping forward now to make himself look like he's not a wimp like the rest of them... knowing that he doesn't have the backing and that a filibuster will never actually happen.

Aside from the anti-choice vote that I'm sure Alito will bring to the court, I'm scared to death about him siding with Bush on every matter that comes before the SC, and giving him even more extreme power than he's taken. The Dems should be pushing that point home.

I didn't realize Pelosi said that?! Is she nuts!

I've become extremely discouraged as well. The Republicans have been hanging themselves for the last several months, and all the Dems can seem to do is cut them free. They're not making any real effort to hold them accountable for anything! They need to grow some big ones.

[stargazer99]

They need 60 votes for cloture. Snow, Collins, possibly Stevens and Chafee should all vote with the Dems. Just because a senator votes for Alito, it doesn't mean they have to vote for cloture, either. This is going to be very interesting. The cloture vote comes at 4:30 pm Monday.

They may not have enough votes for cloture, but I don't think there are more than a few Dems that will go for a filibuster. I think the ones that do support it will back down, and the notion will die before Monday. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't believe it'll happen.

[dissention]

They may not have enough votes for cloture, but I don't think there are more than a few Dems that will go for a filibuster. I think the ones that do support it will back down, and the notion will die before Monday. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't believe it'll happen.

It won't happen. Even Feinstein said last week that while she's not voting for Alito, she doesn't believe in a filibuster.

[DavidMn]

It won't happen. Even Feinstein said last week that while she's not voting for Alito, she doesn't believe in a filibuster.Call me naive, but what the hell has happened to the Democratic party?

[Rickypt]

I think he's stepping forward now to make himself look like he's not a wimp like the rest of them... knowing that he doesn't have the backing and that a filibuster will never actually happen.

Right, and because he plans to subject us to another run for the presidency in '08 and thinks this will somehow make him stand out.

[Rickypt]

I didn't realize Pelosi said that?! Is she nuts!


I was a little off. She isn't supporting investigations to see if Bush committed "impeachable offenses" (which to me is the same thing). I used to be able to count on Pelosi to be a solid progressive, but since becoming Minority Leader, she has shied away from taking a hard stand on anything.

http://www.sfbg.com/40/17/cover_impeach.html

At one point in the meeting, Pelosi was asked whether she will support a resolution by Rep. John Conyers to create a committee with subpoena power to investigate whether members of the Bush administration may have committed impeachable offenses. "I do not intend to support Mr. Conyers's resolution," Pelosi replied.

:(

[The Tower]

Randi Rhodes cried tonight on air (just for a split second before cutting to the break) pleading with Robert Byrd-

"You've still got time. I know you love your country and I know you love the constitution. You haven't voted yet- you can still change your mind. Come on, Bob."

And then she started talking about how much she respects him and how disappointed she is and then she stopped herself and said, "I could just cry". She continued to talk a bit, but you could tell she was losing it and then she cut to the break.

:distress:

My eyes welled up during that and it was hard to hear it. Poor Randi.

[dissention]

Randi Rhodes cried tonight on air (just for a split second before cutting to the break) pleading with Robert Byrd-

"You've still got time. I know you love your country and I know you love the constitution. You haven't voted yet- you can still change your mind. Come on, Bob."

And then she started talking about how much she respects him and how disappointed she is and then she stopped herself and said, "I could just cry". She continued to talk a bit, but you could tell she was losing it and then she cut to the break.

:distress:

My eyes welled up during that and it was hard to hear it. Poor Randi.

I love her to death, but she needs a ****ing backbone. Maybe if she stopped acting as a self-appointed apologist for the Democrats at every opportunity, she'd realize that the Democratic party doesn't give a rat's ass. Instead, she kisses their asses and makes up the most lamebrained excuses for their disgusting behavior as our representatives. She needs to listen to Mike Malloy to get a ****ing clue.

I think she's tops and truly adore her, but when it comes to the Democrats, she loses all credibility. All credibility.

[stargazer99]

Randi Rhodes cried tonight on air (just for a split second before cutting to the break) pleading with Robert Byrd-

"You've still got time. I know you love your country and I know you love the constitution. You haven't voted yet- you can still change your mind. Come on, Bob."

And then she started talking about how much she respects him and how disappointed she is and then she stopped herself and said, "I could just cry". She continued to talk a bit, but you could tell she was losing it and then she cut to the break.

:distress:

My eyes welled up during that and it was hard to hear it. Poor Randi.

This whole thing makes me want to cry.

The Repugs basically "filibustered" Miers because she wasn't conservative enough. But now most of the Dems don't have the balls to filibuster Alito. And some are even voting for him. They've blown every opportunity to do the right thing and fight, on every single issue.

I have no hope left for this country.

[dissention]

This whole thing makes me want to cry.

The Repugs basically "filibustered" Miers because she wasn't conservative enough. But now most of the Dems don't have the balls to filibuster Alito. And some are even voting for him. They've blown every opportunity to do the right thing and fight, on every single issue.

I have no hope left for this country.

It's devastating on so many levels. :(

Check out Buzzflash right now. They say they've learned that Obama is also opposing a filibuster. Nice, huh? All I can say is STOP VOTING FOR THESE MOTHER****ERS.

On The Majority Report earlier tonight, they had a caller who said there's a female Republican who is going to vote no on Alito. Collins has essentially given her yes vote, so my money's on Snowe. If she votes no, she'll prove herself once again to be the only Republican with any integrity.

[stargazer99]

Check out Buzzflash right now. They say they've learned that Obama is also opposing a filibuster. Nice, huh? All I can say is STOP VOTING FOR THESE MOTHER****ERS.

This really depresses me. One of the many reasons I was sad to leave Chicago was that Obama and Durbin would no longer be my senators. I had such hope for Obama.

I've been thinking a lot today about a speech I saw him give down here, a few months back, at a Democratic rally. (He, Reid, and Biden were all there and gave speeches.) The part of Obama's speech that really got the crowd going was when he was talking about how the tides are turning, the republicans are showing their true colors, we have to seize these opportunities and not become complacent, when the republicans attack, we need to attack back in full force, etc. I actually thought he might be one of the few that would stick to that. That maybe he'd become the democratic leader they've been tauting him as.

But all I've seen is 99% of the Dems blow opportunity after opportunity to try and turn things around. They make half-assed attempts at forming "independent commissions" to investigate Katrina, wire tapping, etc, but never really push it. They continue to let the Repugs attack them on every issue, and then just roll over an play dead. And now they're going to hand Alito a lifetime appointment with barely a fight. We are so screwed.

[tynan88]

It seems to me that I would prefer a strong moderate republican in the White House than a limp wristed democrat with no back bone at the moment, some one not too tied to their party lines...

God why can't Mary McDonell run for President she is clearly the best TV President :laugh:

[dissention]

This really depresses me. One of the many reasons I was sad to leave Chicago was that Obama and Durbin would no longer be my senators. I had such hope for Obama.

I've been thinking a lot today about a speech I saw him give down here, a few months back, at a Democratic rally. (He, Reid, and Biden were all there and gave speeches.) The part of Obama's speech that really got the crowd going was when he was talking about how the tides are turning, the republicans are showing their true colors, we have to seize these opportunities and not become complacent, when the republicans attack, we need to attack back in full force, etc. I actually thought he might be one of the few that would stick to that. That maybe he'd become the democratic leader they've been tauting him as.

How depressing. Sounds like it was all talk. They'll say anything to appease, but won't follow through with any action. I was oblivious to it until the last election, which is when I realized that the Dems are just as bad as the Repugs. It hit me like a Mack truck, and all of the current bull**** just proves that they're no better than the Repugs. Even Hillary Clinton is rumored to be opposing a filibuster.

But all I've seen is 99% of the Dems blow opportunity after opportunity to try and turn things around. They make half-assed attempts at forming "independent commissions" to investigate Katrina, wire tapping, etc, but never really push it. They continue to let the Repugs attack them on every issue, and then just roll over an play dead. And now they're going to hand Alito a lifetime appointment with barely a fight. We are so screwed.

You know why they keep pulling this garbage? Because they know that the base and the lefties will still vote for them. It's sad, but it's true. As long as they're getting the votes, they don't care. They'll blow all the hot air they can, but they won't act.

Personally, I'm even amazed at Randi Rhodes for her little demonstration earlier regarding Byrd. Is she that oblivious to reality? Byrd hates queers, he's a social conservative, and he's one of the Gang of 14. I suspect she ate a brain tumor for breakfast.

[stargazer99]

Personally, I'm even amazed at Randi Rhodes for her little demonstration earlier regarding Byrd. Is she that oblivious to reality? Byrd hates queers, he's a social conservative, and he's one of the Gang of 14. I suspect she ate a brain tumor for breakfast.

He's also an ex-Klansman. :(

[dissention]

He's also an ex-Klansman. :(

He was a recruiter for the Klan! :eek: Plus, he wrote this little gem:

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/02/standards.html

"...with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."

And he possesses a hatred for gays.

[dissention]

Even more proof of Democratic incompetence:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/27/politics/27religion.html?_r=1

Democrats in Georgia and Alabama, borrowing an idea usually advanced by conservative Republicans, are promoting Bible classes in the public schools. Their Republican opponents are in turn denouncing them as "pharisees," a favorite term of liberals for politicians who exploit religion.

Democrats in both states have introduced bills authorizing school districts to teach courses modeled after a new textbook, "The Bible and Its Influence." It was produced by the nonpartisan, ecumenical Bible Literacy Project and provides an assessment of the Bible's impact on history, literature and art that is academic and detached, if largely laudatory.

The Democrats who introduced the bills said they hoped to compete with Republicans for conservative Christian voters. "Rather than sitting back on our heels and then being knocked in our face, we are going to respond in a thoughtful way," said Kasim Reed, a Georgia state senator from Atlanta and one of the sponsors of the bill. "We are not going to give away the South anymore because we are unwilling to talk about our faith."

In an interview, Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, promised that Democrats would do a better job talking about values to religious voters. "We have done it in a secular way, and we don't have to," he said, adding, "I think teaching the Bible as literature is a good thing."

[sparky]

He was a recruiter for the Klan! :eek: Plus, he wrote this little gem:

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/02/standards.html

"...with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."

And he possesses a hatred for gays.


May I live to see the day when he is a prison bitch for an extremely large African American man named Luther.

[stargazer99]

He was a recruiter for the Klan! :eek: Plus, he wrote this little gem:

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/02/standards.html

"...with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."

And he possesses a hatred for gays.

But he did win The Daily Show's "Coot-off" against Ted Stevens. :p Well deserved, I might add.

[The Tower]

Personally, I'm even amazed at Randi Rhodes for her little demonstration earlier regarding Byrd. Is she that oblivious to reality? Byrd hates queers, he's a social conservative, and he's one of the Gang of 14. I suspect she ate a brain tumor for breakfast.
Bleh. You don't get it.

She's living in the reality of the situation. The vote is the vote. It's not like one can change the scorecard at this point. It's not about the long record, it's about this vote.

Her disappointment was at this one. critical. vote.

She said she hasn't been a big fan of Byrd's- her deal was strictly on a constitutional basis and she incinerated the ****er for even considering voting for Scalito.

[irishgrl]

This whole thing makes me want to cry.

The Repugs basically "filibustered" Miers because she wasn't conservative enough. But now most of the Dems don't have the balls to filibuster Alito. And some are even voting for him. They've blown every opportunity to do the right thing and fight, on every single issue.

I have no hope left for this country.
I hate to say it but I agree with you. And, for the first time in my life, this die hard Dem is thinking of going Green.......I just cant believe how spineless the party has become, and all of the decent things it used to stand for seem to have faded into mist....Im just glad that I dont have to put up with the Repug nonsense as long as you young folks do....its too sad really...

[SuzeQuze]

This whole thing makes me want to cry.

The Repugs basically "filibustered" Miers because she wasn't conservative enough. But now most of the Dems don't have the balls to filibuster Alito. And some are even voting for him. They've blown every opportunity to do the right thing and fight, on every single issue.

I have no hope left for this country.

If you let yourself give up hope then they win.

[irishgrl]

If you let yourself give up hope then they win.
sigh...you're right. but its so hard to continue to have faith. Still, you shame me into standing firm. For that I thank you.

[cliffdweller]

If you let yourself give up hope then they win.


I agree Suze, even though I feel dangerously close to giving up. The Democratic party needs a fire lit under their asses. I can't believe this current administration and all the harm it's doing isn't that fire, but it should be. How many more atrocities need to happen before they see a need for some serious over-hauling?

[stargazer99]

Even more proof of Democratic incompetence:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/27/politics/27religion.html?_r=1

Democrats in Georgia and Alabama, borrowing an idea usually advanced by conservative Republicans, are promoting Bible classes in the public schools. Their Republican opponents are in turn denouncing them as "pharisees," a favorite term of liberals for politicians who exploit religion.

Democrats in both states have introduced bills authorizing school districts to teach courses modeled after a new textbook, "The Bible and Its Influence." It was produced by the nonpartisan, ecumenical Bible Literacy Project and provides an assessment of the Bible's impact on history, literature and art that is academic and detached, if largely laudatory.

The Democrats who introduced the bills said they hoped to compete with Republicans for conservative Christian voters. "Rather than sitting back on our heels and then being knocked in our face, we are going to respond in a thoughtful way," said Kasim Reed, a Georgia state senator from Atlanta and one of the sponsors of the bill. "We are not going to give away the South anymore because we are unwilling to talk about our faith."

In an interview, Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, promised that Democrats would do a better job talking about values to religious voters. "We have done it in a secular way, and we don't have to," he said, adding, "I think teaching the Bible as literature is a good thing."

I missed this post last night. But I just read this article online this morning, and thought about this whole conversation of how the Dems are selling us out!

The article I read expanded a little more. It said that, in Georgia at least, the course they're proposing would teach how the bible has impacted history, art and literature. In theory, I don't really have a problem with such a class if it's a liberal arts elective with that kind of content. As long as it's not a required class, and isn't teaching or pushing religion. But it's so obvious that these senators are doing this as an attempt win Christian votes and distance themself from the left. And it's also opening a whole can of worms.

The article I read didn't specify how the class would be taught in Alabama. But the way they talked about how religious Alabama is, and the fact that they want prayer in the public schools, I get the feeling their course would be more of a religion class. And I'm not sure if it would be an elective, or required. But I get the feeling that if the bill passes in either state, even if the classes are elective liberal arts classes and not religion classes, it will be taken a step further and a step further until religion is fully entrenched in the public school. Another step to wipe out public education. :(

I can't understand why "liberal" has become such a dirty word, and why we can't keep religion the hell out of government. These so-called Dems are blatantly pandering, and are worse than those that are simply sitting on their asses going along with the status quo.

[stargazer99]

If you let yourself give up hope then they win.

While I've given up hope, I won't give up the fight. I still sent letters to some of the Dems who are opposing a filibuster. May not do any good, but at least I know I did something.

I just refuse to get my hopes up anymore, because they're continuously crushed. I actually believed, with the Republican party cracking over these last several months, that things were turning around and it would light a fire under the Dems asses. But all I see are half-assed attempts at appearing to have some balls, while they let these guys get away with murder.

And this is such an important one. This guy is getting a lifetime appointment, and very likely will be casting the deciding vote on issues that will affect all Americans. This is too important for the Dems to shrug and say "We'll look foolish if we fight this", or "We have to pick and choose our battles." This is one of the most important battles of all! This isn't the time to stick our heads in the sand. If they're going to back down on this, I don't believe they'll come through on anything.

While I really hope that Kerry's and Kennedy's efforts gain momentum, I am not holding my breath. This late in the game, I see it as an attempt to make themselves look good to liberals.

But who knows, maybe I'll be surprised. Maybe the Dems are just holding their cards close to the vest, and are really planning a surprise attack. This is one instance where I really am hoping to be proven wrong! I'd be the happiest, crow-eating liberal around! :nod:

[dissention]

Bleh. You don't get it.

She's living in the reality of the situation. The vote is the vote. It's not like one can change the scorecard at this point. It's not about the long record, it's about this vote.

Her disappointment was at this one. critical. vote.

She said she hasn't been a big fan of Byrd's- her deal was strictly on a constitutional basis and she incinerated the ****er for even considering voting for Scalito.

I get it perfectly fine, she's the one who didn't seem to get it. She expressed disappointment over Byrd's vote, which is completely asinine when you look at the man who is casting the vote. Of course it's about the long record, the long record serves as the barometer by which a politicians future votes and actions are to be measured by. She also failed to take into consideration the political ramifications for him if he did cast that no vote. The fact that she expressed disappointment over this man's vote, the vote of a man who is up for re-election soon and isn't going to risk being vilified any more by the Republican party that is on the hunt for Dems in his very state, tells me that she's living in a different reality when it comes to the Democrats. End of story.

[dissention]

I agree Suze, even though I feel dangerously close to giving up. The Democratic party needs a fire lit under their asses.

Losing the past two elections wasn't fire enough? Becoming the minority party for years wasn't fire enough? Being led into an unwinnable war wasn't enough? Bush's policies aren't fire enough? Two neocons appointed to the USSC isn't fire enough?

I can't believe this current administration and all the harm it's doing isn't that fire, but it should be. How many more atrocities need to happen before they see a need for some serious over-hauling?

How many atrocities need to happen before the Democrats become Democrats again and not Republican-lite f*ck-ups who are as complicit as Bush & his merry band of thieves due to their gross inaction?

[cliffdweller]

Losing the past two elections wasn't fire enough? Becoming the minority party for years wasn't fire enough? Being led into an unwinnable war wasn't enough? Bush's policies aren't fire enough? Two neocons appointed to the USSC isn't fire enough?



How many atrocities need to happen before the Democrats become Democrats again and not Republican-lite f*ck-ups who are as complicit as Bush & his merry band of thieves due to their gross inaction?


I concur. Thanks for fleshing out my laconic post you chatty Kathy! :laugh:

[stargazer99]

I hate to say it but I agree with you. And, for the first time in my life, this die hard Dem is thinking of going Green.......I just cant believe how spineless the party has become, and all of the decent things it used to stand for seem to have faded into mist....Im just glad that I dont have to put up with the Repug nonsense as long as you young folks do....its too sad really...

I'm considering a switch as well, unless things drastically turn around for the better soon.

[dissention]

I concur. Thanks for fleshing out my laconic post you chatty Kathy! :laugh:

No problem.

And to push it even further, how many atrocities do the Democrats have to put their stamp of approval on before die-hard Democrat voters jump ship? This high and mighty bull**** coming from people who vote for these Democrats (the ones who rant on and on about the evils of the Republican party while their party is just as bad and complicit) and the ones who offer their unwavering support for them are not only disgustingly hypocritical, but they look like utter fools. The way I see it, those who continue to support these people are just as bad as the Republicans. Maybe worse because they're voting to support politicians who don't vote or act to uphold the principles and beliefs of the people who are voting for them. That, my friend, is sickening.

[cliffdweller]

No problem.

And to push it even further, how many atrocities do the Democrats have to put their stamp of approval on before die-hard Democrat voters jump ship? This high and mighty bull**** coming from people who vote for these Democrats (the ones who rant on and on about the evils of the Republican party while their party is just as bad and complicit) and the ones who offer their unwavering support for them are not only disgustingly hypocritical, but they look like utter fools. The way I see it, those who continue to support these people are just as bad as the Republicans. Maybe worse because they're voting to support politicians who don't vote or act to uphold the principles and beliefs of the people who are voting for them. That, my friend, is sickening.

So what's the alternative? The Green Party? They don't have a chance in hell. I'd say I'd be throwing my vote away except it looks like I did that with Kerry this last presidential election so :shrug:. Although, I guess, if we're to look at this as a "glass half full" scenario, we should feel better with the knowledge that half of the country did NOT vote for the current baffoon we call president. I try to look on the bright side no matter how dismal it all seems.

[dissention]

So what's the alternative? The Green Party? They don't have a chance in hell. I'd say I'd be throwing my vote away except it looks like I did that with Kerry this last presidential election so :shrug:.

Explain to me where the logic is in that reasoning. Even though they are not representing you, you'd vote for a Democrat just so that your vote will count? My apologies, but people who think that shouldn't have the right to vote. It makes no sense to me that someone would rather vote for the winner, despite the fact that the winner will not represent them, over voting for your principles. The line between Democrats and Republicans is so fine these days that it's practically doesn't exist.

Although, I guess, if we're to look at this as a "glass half full" scenario, we should feel better with the knowledge that half of the country did NOT vote for the current baffoon we call president. I try to look on the bright side no matter how dismal it all seems.

The election was rigged, they stole it again. :laugh:

[cliffdweller]

Explain to me where the logic is in that reasoning. Even though they are not representing you, you'd vote for a Democrat just so that your vote will count? My apologies, but people who think that shouldn't have the right to vote. It makes no sense to me that someone would rather vote for the winner, despite the fact that the winner will not represent them, over voting for your principles. The line between Democrats and Republicans is so fine these days that it's practically doesn't exist.

Oh I agree, but I'd rather vote for a viable candidate who represents me on MOST OF the issues I feel are MOST important and pressing. I vote for candidates based on the issues, and Democrats tend to be the ones to uphold the same views as I do on issues I find most important. Does this make sense? I hate to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and condemning Democrats to oblivion because they are not as stringent on each and every issue as you would like for them to be seems counter-productive and not very pragmatic. Seriously, who would you have rather seen in the White House: Kerry or Bush? And please be reasonable in your answer; absolutes get us nowhere.

[dissention]

Oh I agree, but I'd rather vote for a viable candidate who represents me on MOST OF the issues I feel are MOST important and pressing. I vote for candidates based on the issues, and Democrats tend to be the ones to uphold the same views as I do on issues I find most important. Does this make sense? I hate to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and condemning Democrats to oblivion because they are not as stringent on each and every issue as you would like for them to be seems counter-productive and not very pragmatic. Seriously, who would you have rather seen in the White House: Kerry or Bush? And please be reasonable in your answer; absolutes get us nowhere.

Of course I'd rather see Kerry. That goes without saying. But I want people to look at the current Democratic party and tell me with a straight face that they're upholding liberal views, principles, and issues. They are not. It's disingenuous to even say anything along the lines of "condemning Democrats to oblivion because they are not as stringent on each and every issue as you would like for them to be seems counter-productive" because the simple fact is that it's not a few things here and there that they're aren't stringent on, it's 99 percent of things. Everything that Bush has done while in office has been done with approval and complicity from the Democrats. To say otherwise is idiotic. So, my question is why people still support that party so ferociously when they simply have no ground to stand on.

[markolas]

Oh I agree, but I'd rather vote for a viable candidate who represents me on MOST OF the issues I feel are MOST important and pressing.

I'm sick of the Democrats hemming and hawing about gay rights. Given the choice between Kerry and Bush, I'd choose Kerry, but only because he wouldn't appoint crazies like Roberts and Scalito to the Supreme Court. But I have no illusions that he supports equal rights for gay people. He does not.

I get that to most heteros this is a minor issue, but it *is* the most important and pressing issue to me, and I won't cast a vote for another Democrat who doesn't support my full equality under the law.

[gldstwmn]

If you let yourself give up hope then they win.

I am so close now. Someone please talk me out of it.:(

[dissention]

I am so close now. Someone please talk me out of it.:(

Come to us Greens, Chris. You know you're too good for the Democrats. :xoxo:

[gldstwmn]

Clinton will support filibuster:

http://democrats.com/alito-48

[gldstwmn]

Come to us Greens, Chris. You know you're too good for the Democrats. :xoxo:

Thanks. :xoxo:

[Rickypt]

But he did win The Daily Show's "Coot-off" against Ted Stevens. :p Well deserved, I might add.

That was f*king hilarious!

This lifelong Dem is going to reregister as an independent if they don't stop Alito. I have some problems with the Greens, especially locally, so I'm not quite ready to join their party. Instead, I will cast each vote on a case-by-case basis. Barbara Boxer will always get my vote, but I may very well vote 3rd party if the 2008 Dem candidate is someone like Hillary who seems to have no firm principles. Or I might just vote for McCain out of respect for the fact that he actually has principles and sticks with them

Thing about the Dems is that they have been lame pretty much since I became politically aware. Their only big success in recent history is Clinton and that's only because he is such a master politician.

I remember dancing on Castro Street all night long after the '92 election. Dems were going to be in control and change was coming. Two months later, we got "Don't Ask Don't Tell" and a codification of the HIV immigration ban. A year later, national health care was dead for a zillion years, even though Dems controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress. Four years later, Clinton signs DOMA. Not to mention welfare reform and ending public benefits for immigrants.

Dems suck even when they are in control.

Obama is going to disappoint us because he wants to be president. These guys aren't basing their votes and action on how they really feel; they are all calculated on future political races.

This country is too diverse politically not to have a several party system. I'd be much happier being part of a small, but truly oppostional party, than having to go protest people from my own party to teach them what it means to be a Democrat.

:mad:

[SuzeQuze]

I am so close now. Someone please talk me out of it.:(

Remember what holocaust survivors have said. And Nelson Mandela. They went to a safe place inside of themselves and hoped to be liberated. If they can hold onto hope in such circumstances than we certainly can under these!

[stargazer99]

That was f*king hilarious!

This lifelong Dem is going to reregister as an independent if they don't stop Alito. I have some problems with the Greens, especially locally, so I'm not quite ready to join their party. Instead, I will cast each vote on a case-by-case basis. Barbara Boxer will always get my vote, but I may very well vote 3rd party if the 2008 Dem candidate is someone like Hillary who seems to have no firm principles. Or I might just vote for McCain out of respect for the fact that he actually has principles and sticks with them

Thing about the Dems is that they have been lame pretty much since I became politically aware. Their only big success in recent history is Clinton and that's only because he is such a master politician.

I remember dancing on Castro Street all night long after the '92 election. Dems were going to be in control and change was coming. Two months later, we got "Don't Ask Don't Tell" and a codification of the HIV immigration ban. A year later, national health care was dead for a zillion years, even though Dems controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress. Four years later, Clinton signs DOMA. Not to mention welfare reform and ending public benefits for immigrants.

Dems suck even when they are in control.

Obama is going to disappoint us because he wants to be president. These guys aren't basing their votes and action on how they really feel; they are all calculated on future political races.

This country is too diverse politically not to have a several party system. I'd be much happier being part of a small, but truly oppostional party, than having to go protest people from my own party to teach them what it means to be a Democrat.

:mad:

I LOVE The Daily Show! They never cease to have me falling on the floor in hysterics! Did you see last night, when they showed Bush getting distracted by a camera that was coming loose from the ceiling? He'd stop talking and just stare at it with his dumb George look. Then John Stewart follows up with: "If it had been a shiny object, we would have lost him for weeks!" :lol:

I need to find out more about the Greens... to be honest, I don't really know a lot about the party. But if this is the best fight the Dems can give, then I'm done with them.

[stargazer99]

Clinton will support filibuster:

http://democrats.com/alito-48


Reid is now saying that even though they don't have enough votes to support a filibuster, he would support the effort in order to "send a message". :rolleyes:

http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/campaignforthecourt/

[irishgrl]

That was f*king hilarious!

This lifelong Dem is going to reregister as an independent if they don't stop Alito. I have some problems with the Greens, especially locally, so I'm not quite ready to join their party. Instead, I will cast each vote on a case-by-case basis. Barbara Boxer will always get my vote, but I may very well vote 3rd party if the 2008 Dem candidate is someone like Hillary who seems to have no firm principles. Or I might just vote for McCain out of respect for the fact that he actually has principles and sticks with them

Thing about the Dems is that they have been lame pretty much since I became politically aware. Their only big success in recent history is Clinton and that's only because he is such a master politician.

I remember dancing on Castro Street all night long after the '92 election. Dems were going to be in control and change was coming. Two months later, we got "Don't Ask Don't Tell" and a codification of the HIV immigration ban. A year later, national health care was dead for a zillion years, even though Dems controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress. Four years later, Clinton signs DOMA. Not to mention welfare reform and ending public benefits for immigrants.

Dems suck even when they are in control.

Obama is going to disappoint us because he wants to be president. These guys aren't basing their votes and action on how they really feel; they are all calculated on future political races.

This country is too diverse politically not to have a several party system. I'd be much happier being part of a small, but truly oppostional party, than having to go protest people from my own party to teach them what it means to be a Democrat.

:mad:

Having just read thru several of your's and Diss' posts........I have to say that in some ways (many ways) I agree with what you both are saying, there is much to be disappointed in with the Dem party. But, I have been voting since 1976, and I have seen a bit more from the Dems than you have and its harder for me to give up on them because I can remember a time when the Dem party really DID represent the little guy....I know times are changing and the Dem party has made a piss poor showing for itself in recent years. But you'll have to remember that my loyalty goes back many MANY years and its not quite as easy for me to abandon something I truly believe in as it is for you youngsters. So, on the one hand, I am incredibly unhappy with the Dems for not being firmer, especially now when I think the will of the people would be firmly behind them if they stood up NOW. ON the other hand, I feel reluctant to jump ship forever. I do have strong feelings about choice however and if the Dems allow Alito in AND he votes in the future to overturn Roe, thats IT for me. Im going to a different party. Im thinking Green, but maybe Independent too. Im not a Libertarian, I think those guys are closet Anarchists, but I am an environmentalist and that is another huge part of who I am so the Green Party does have its appeal. IF (and only if) Roe is overturned.

[stargazer99]

This is one of many reasons I'm so upset about Alito. Our egomaniac president is totaly out of control. He won't let his aides testify during a Katrina investigation?!

Alito is big on expanded presidential powers and less congressional power. Hell, let's just get rid of all those pesky checks and balances! Both Bush appointees will side with Bush on any issue that comes before them. If Bush refuses to cooperate in any investgations, and it ends up before the SC, who do you think will win? And Alito will be the deciding vote.

And Bush will give his State of the Union address next week, and convince 51% of this country that everything he's doing is proper, legal, and to fight those terrorists that are about to attack at any second. And because Dubya says it's so, 51% of this country will believe him. :mad:

Somebody, PLEASE give Dubya a blow job so we can impeach! I'll pay anyone willing to do it! Hell, maybe we can all take up a collection!

=================================================

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/26/AR2006012601943.html?nav=rss_world


Bush Reasserts Presidential Prerogatives
Eavesdropping, Katrina Probe Cited as Concerns

By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 27, 2006; A06



President Bush set limits yesterday on White House cooperation in three political disputes, saying he is determined to assert presidential prerogatives on such matters as domestic eavesdropping and congressional inquiries into Hurricane Katrina.

In a mid-morning news conference, Bush told reporters he is skeptical of a proposed law imposing new oversights on his use of the National Security Agency to listen in on electronic communications. He also said that he will block White House aides from testifying about the slow federal response to Hurricane Katrina, and that he will not release official White House photos of himself with former Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Facing repeated questions, Bush distanced himself from Abramoff, who is at the center of the biggest political corruption and bribery scandal in a generation. Bush said he does not recall having his picture taken with Abramoff or ever meeting him. Abramoff was a member of the exclusive club of Bush's $100,000 fundraisers known as Pioneers.

"Having my picture taken with someone doesn't mean that I'm a friend with him or know him very well," Bush told reporters.

According to three people who reviewed half a dozen photos of the men, Bush is pictured at official gatherings and fundraisers with Abramoff and his children. He also attended a White House meeting with some of Abramoff's clients, including tribal leaders and the then-speaker of the House for the Northern Mariana Islands, the sources said. Abramoff has pictures from the event, they said.

If prosecutors "believe something was done inappropriately in the White House, they'll come and look and they're welcome to do so," Bush said. The White House has also refused to detail meetings between Abramoff and top White House aides.

The president was similarly adamant about not allowing top aides to testify about Hurricane Katrina. Bush, who has moved on several fronts over the past five years to strengthen the power of the presidency, said it would be damaging to him and future presidents if aides feared providing candid advice.

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), a staunch supporter of Bush on foreign policy, has accused the White House of undermining the probe by refusing to detail the role of White House officials. "If people give me advice and they're forced to disclose that advice, it means the next time an issue comes up I might not be able to get unvarnished advice from my advisers," Bush said. "And that's just the way it works."

On the issue of NSA eavesdropping on overseas communications to or from U.S. citizens, Bush said he is concerned about Congress writing a new spying law because it could force the government to provide details and clues about a top-secret program used to hunt down terrorists.

"There's no doubt in my mind it is legal," Bush said. Democrats have accused Bush of breaking the law by authorizing the spying program without approval from Congress or the courts. The debate is expected to dominate hearings, scheduled to begin Feb. 6, on the highly classified NSA program.

"But it's important for people to understand that this program is so sensitive and so important that if information gets out to how we run it or how we operate it, it'll help the enemy," he said. "Why tell the enemy what we're doing?" [and 51% of Americans will believe this crap!]

In his 10th news conference since winning reelection, Bush talked at length about presidential power but also previewed next week's State of the Union speech and weighed in on several foreign policy issues, including the Hamas victory in the Palestinian elections.

The performance was quintessential Bush: He joked and sparred with reporters, and betrayed no sense of second-guessing his decisions. When pressed about the election victory of Hamas, which the United States and other countries have called a terrorist group, Bush initially portrayed the vote as a triumph of the democratic process and a wake-up call to the current Palestinian leadership. Later, he conceded the results could set back the Middle East peace process, a top Bush priority.

Bush was often blunt, at one point taking a reporter's challenge to declare with "Texas straight talk" that the United States will never torture prisoners. "No American will be allowed to torture another human being anywhere in the world," Bush shot back. He said that is why the White House supported the law sponsored by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) that outlawed cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees. A statement released by the White House when Bush signed the law, however, left vague whether the administration is asserting that a loophole exists.

Bush endorsed a plan to allow Russia to help produce nuclear energy for Iran as a way to keep the anti-American regime from building nuclear weapons. But he mischaracterized Iran's public position by saying, "The Iranians have said, 'We want a weapon.' " Publicly, the Iranian government has insisted the opposite is true, though Tehran is widely believed to be actively seeking nuclear weapons.

Although he has not vetoed a spending bill since taking office, Bush warned he is "fully prepared to use the veto" if lawmakers overspend. The government is more than 25 percent larger today in total spending than it was the day Bush took office, and conservatives are calling on the president and Congress to reduce the size of the federal budget.

Bush is expected to talk about new spending restraint during his State of the Union address Tuesday night. The speech will be the official start of a legislative year that will be confined by high budget deficits and a tight legislative schedule. As Bush was speaking, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the 2006 deficit at $337 billion, up from 2005.

Bush will forgo expensive new programs in his speech, aides said, though he will call for new tax breaks to mitigate the cost of health insurance, which has skyrocketed in recent years. With the House and Senate up for grabs in November, politics, not policy, will likely drive much of the congressional agenda.

Bush said he is excited to be campaigning for GOP candidates in the midterm elections, which he predicted will be about "peace and prosperity."

At hearings on the NSA spying, Democrats plan to press administration officials to explain why Bush did not consult Congress more broadly about the program, why he does not believe Congress should write a new law governing eavesdropping programs such as the NSA operation, and why he believes the super-secret Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act courts should not be consulted before eavesdropping on communications to and from the United States. In his news conference, Bush emphasized that FISA was enacted in 1978 -- "a different world," he said.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) said Bush's explanation that the Constitution and the war resolution passed after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks provide the president with extraordinary wartime power is wrong. "Congress can't roll over in the face of these outrageous claims," Kennedy said. "No president is above the law."

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

[The Tower]

She expressed disappointment over Byrd's vote, which is completely asinine when you look at the man who is casting the vote.
Not really. Byrd has a reputation of believing in the sanctity of the constitution. Alito doesn't give a **** about the constitution. Regardless of other issues, there's the rub.

The fact that she expressed disappointment over this man's vote, the vote of a man who is up for re-election soon and isn't going to risk being vilified any more by the Republican party that is on the hunt for Dems in his very state, tells me that she's living in a different reality when it comes to the Democrats. End of story.
She understands the reality of the religiosity of West Virginia. She talked about that last night. She was urging Byrd to have some balls and stick to his committment to the integrity of the Senate and go out with a bang- i.e. forget about getting re-elected at his advanced age. It ain't gonna happen, but at lease she can desire for it to happen.

I hate to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and condemning Democrats to oblivion because they are not as stringent on each and every issue as you would like for them to be seems counter-productive and not very pragmatic.
Bingo.

Of course I'd rather see Kerry. That goes without saying. But I want people to look at the current Democratic party and tell me with a straight face that they're upholding liberal views, principles, and issues. They are not.
I think you're painting this picture with a very broad brush. For every Republican-in-Democrat's-clothes you can name, I can name a dyed-in-the-wool liberal. To make the assumption that the Democratic party is automatically far-left is naive.

It's disingenuous to even say anything along the lines of "condemning Democrats to oblivion because they are not as stringent on each and every issue as you would like for them to be seems counter-productive" because the simple fact is that it's not a few things here and there that they're aren't stringent on, it's 99 percent of things.
I don't think that's true.

Everything that Bush has done while in office has been done with approval and complicity from the Democrats. To say otherwise is idiotic.
Um, no- not really. Being in the minority in both houses, the Democrats have no power to control anything. There hasn't been "complicity". There have been some who are creeps (Ben Nelson, anyone?). However, I believe the majority of the Democrats in congress have been consistently dissenting against what the majority and the administration have been doing- it's just that their statements have no power whatsoever. Patrick Leahy ripped the **** out of Alito, but with a 10 to 8 republican majority on the judiciary committee he has no power to altar anything.

So, my question is why people still support that party so ferociously when they simply have no ground to stand on.
Just because Dubya stole the election is no reason for you to give up.

I am so close now. Someone please talk me out of it.:(
:wavey: Imagine the 2006 elections which are only nine months away. Imagine Spygate and Plamegate and Delaygate and allllll the Abramoff **** coming to a head. Imagine the Democrats regaining control of the Senate or the House. Imagine payback being a bitch.

[irishgrl]

Not really. Byrd has a reputation of believing in the sanctity of the constitution. Alito doesn't give a **** about the constitution. Regardless of other issues, there's the rub.


She understands the reality of the religiosity of West Virginia. She talked about that last night. She was urging Byrd to have some balls and stick to his committment to the integrity of the Senate and go out with a bang- i.e. forget about getting re-elected at his advanced age. It ain't gonna happen, but at lease she can desire for it to happen.


Bingo.


I think you're painting this picture with a very broad brush. For every Republican-in-Democrat's-clothes you can name, I can name a dyed-in-the-wool liberal. To make the assumption that the Democratic party is automatically far-left is naive.


I don't think that's true.


Um, no- not really. Being in the minority in both houses, the Democrats have no power to control anything. There hasn't been "complicity". There have been some who are creeps (Ben Nelson, anyone?). However, I believe the majority of the Democrats in congress have been consistently dissenting against what the majority and the administration have been doing- it's just that their statements have no power whatsoever. Patrick Leahy ripped the **** out of Alito, but with a 10 to 8 republican majority on the judiciary committee he has no power to altar anything.


Just because Dubya stole the election is no reason for you to give up.


:wavey: Imagine the 2006 elections which are only nine months away. Imagine Spygate and Plamegate and Delaygate and allllll the Abramoff **** coming to a head. Imagine the Democrats regaining control of the Senate or the House. Imagine payback being a bitch.

Sooooooooooooooo, to take your scenario a bit further, lets imagine a Dem controlled congress recalling the last two Supreme Court Judges :nod:

btw, the fact that Dumbya stole the election isnt enuff to make me (or others, Im sure) give up, I think its more the fact that our representatives (our REPRESENTATIVES--the mooks that are supposed to REPRESENT US) are so spineless. I personally think this time represents a prime opportunity to grab the bull by the horns and DO something (ANYTHING!) and our party does what??? sits on its hands?
Arent you a bit peeved Towie? just a little?

[gldstwmn]

:wavey: Imagine the 2006 elections which are only nine months away. Imagine Spygate and Plamegate and Delaygate and allllll the Abramoff **** coming to a head. Imagine the Democrats regaining control of the Senate or the House. Imagine payback being a bitch.

Ooh. Now there's something to keep me going. :xoxo:

[Rickypt]

Ben Nelson, anyone?

No, thanks! ;)

Imagine the Democrats regaining control of the Senate or the House. Imagine payback being a bitch.

I'm imagining and hoping with all my soul, but when I look at actual contested races, it seems impossible, if not highly difficult. However, if the scandals are at a peak in November, then '06 could be just like '94 was for the GOP. Problem is that in '94, the Republicans had a slate of candidates around the country who ran with a common agenda and message. I don't see that happening with the Dems.

My favorite contested race is Nevada, where Jimmy Carter's son is going to take on Ensign.

[Rickypt]

Reid is now saying that even though they don't have enough votes to support a filibuster, he would support the effort in order to "send a message". :rolleyes:

http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/campaignforthecourt/

Wow, what a leader. He should be twisting testicles right now, not admitting defeat.

[DavidMn]

I personally thought Kerry was a bad choice to lead this fight because he might be the only person who could challenge Alan Greenspan for being the most boring person to listen to.:lol:

[SomeKindaMother]

Explain to me where the logic is in that reasoning. Even though they are not representing you, you'd vote for a Democrat just so that your vote will count? My apologies, but people who think that shouldn't have the right to vote.

Let's say I like candidate "A" the best, and absolutely despise candidate "C". I know candidate A has no chance of winning and that candidate "B" is a hell of a lot better than "C". So I decide that the most important thing to me is to keep "C" out of office. Then I should not have the right to vote all if I decide to choose "B" rather than "A"???

Kelly :)

[cliffdweller]

Of course I'd rather see Kerry. That goes without saying. But I want people to look at the current Democratic party and tell me with a straight face that they're upholding liberal views, principles, and issues. They are not. It's disingenuous to even say anything along the lines of "condemning Democrats to oblivion because they are not as stringent on each and every issue as you would like for them to be seems counter-productive" because the simple fact is that it's not a few things here and there that they're aren't stringent on, it's 99 percent of things. Everything that Bush has done while in office has been done with approval and complicity from the Democrats. To say otherwise is idiotic. So, my question is why people still support that party so ferociously when they simply have no ground to stand on.


Look, I'm not ferociously defending anyone, however, I am very much in support of Democracy and I will hold out hope that everyone else out there is too. We are a 2 party system, as wonderful as it would be to be a multi-party system, it is still a pie in the sky dream that ain't gonna come to fruition any time soon. So we gotta work with what we got right? I believe it is not practical and/or pragmatic to vote for unviable candidates (especially in these troublesome times) when we need to get actual work done out there, in other words as beautiful a principal as "voting your conscious is" it is not helping the current situation in this country, it is only making it worse. See, principals are nothing if they don't get work done and I don't see parties like the Green party actually doing anything that is making a dent in the actual state of affairs or political climate in this country. And furthermore, if people continue to be swayed by the rhetoric that the Democratic party is just another Republican party in sheep's clothing then it will only serve to further polarize the country causing an even bigger rift for Dems who ARE trying to make a difference. Yes, the Democratic party is weak right now, but let's not give up on it, we need to work to make it stronger (I know that sounds cheesy but bear with me please) :angel:

[amber]

Look, I'm not ferociously defending anyone, however, I am very much in support of Democracy and I will hold out hope that everyone else out there is too. We are a 2 party system, as wonderful as it would be to be a multi-party system, it is still a pie in the sky dream that ain't gonna come to fruition any time soon. So we gotta work with what we got right? I believe it is not practical and/or pragmatic to vote for unviable candidates (especially in these troublesome times) when we need to get actual work done out there, in other words as beautiful a principal as "voting your conscious is" it is not helping the current situation in this country, it is only making it worse. See, principals are nothing if they don't get work done and I don't see parties like the Green party actually doing anything that is making a dent in the actual state of affairs or political climate in this country. And furthermore, if people continue to be swayed by the rhetoric that the Democratic party is just another Republican party in sheep's clothing then it will only serve to further polarize the country causing an even bigger rift for Dems who ARE trying to make a difference. Yes, the Democratic party is weak right now, but let's not give up on it, we need to work to make it stronger (I know that sounds cheesy but bear with me please) :angel:

Green doesn't make a dent exactly because of people who have the mindset that Green doesn't make a dent, and therefore won't switch to Green. Also, it's not "rhetoric" that Dems are just repubs dressed up in sheeps clothing. Besides a few exceptions (and I mean a few) it's the truth. Both Dems and Pubs work for big money, the Dems just try to pretend they don't. (again, with a few exceptions) Even Boxer didn't vote against the Patriot Act, or the war, and she didn't say anything when Clinton used military force in Bosnia, nor has she spoken up about wire tapping. Those are just examples of Dem being lame, and supposedly one of our best Dems, too.

I think the losingest fight is not the Green's agenda, the losingest fight is thinking Democrats can be "turned around" or somehow swayed into being more liberal. That's the biggest farce of all. The Dems aren't "doing anything that is making a dent in the actual state of affairs or political climate in this country" either, and if you think they are, you're being fooled.

[gldstwmn]

Please call the senators and let them know if you want them to support the filibuster:

http://democrats.com/alito-48

Toll free number to the senate switchboard: 1 888 355 3588

[cliffdweller]

Please call the senators and let them know if you want them to support the filibuster:

http://democrats.com/alito-48

Toll free number to the senate switchboard: 1 888 355 3588


Speaking of getting work done, thanks for posting this gldstwmn.

[cliffdweller]

Green doesn't make a dent exactly because of people who have the mindset that Green doesn't make a dent, and therefore won't switch to Green. Also, it's not "rhetoric" that Dems are just repubs dressed up in sheeps clothing. Besides a few exceptions (and I mean a few) it's the truth. Both Dems and Pubs work for big money, the Dems just try to pretend they don't. (again, with a few exceptions) Even Boxer didn't vote against the Patriot Act, or the war, and she didn't say anything when Clinton used military force in Bosnia.
I think the losingest fight is not the Green's agenda, the losingest fight is thinking Democrats can be "turned around" or somehow swayed into being more liberal. That's the biggest farce of all. The Dems aren't "doing anything that is making a dent in the actual state of affairs or political climate in this country" either, and if you think they are, you're being fooled.

I try to have hope for a party that actually has a chance of getting candidates in office. If you think the Green Party can ever capture most of America's support (enough to make a difference mind you) then you're the one who is being fooled. And I have nothing against them, in fact, I agree with a lot of what they have to say. It's just that the majority of Americans are not going to fall in line with the Green Party any time soon, and with the current state of affairs we don't have time to f*ck around, ya know? But I applaud you, go build up your party, I hope it becomes a huge success. I also hope that one day we can live in a country that has a multi-party system but unfortunately our country was built on the foundation of a two-party system that shows no signs of changing. Them's the facts. If you want to ignore them, again, more power to you. Go Greens!

[amber]

I try to have hope for a party that actually has a chance of getting candidates in office. If you think the Green Party can ever capture most of America's support (enough to make a difference mind you) then you're the one who is being fooled. And I have nothing against them, in fact, I agree with a lot of what they have to say. It's just that the majority of Americans are not going to fall in line with the Green Party any time soon, and with the current state of affairs we don't have time to f*ck around, ya know? But I applaud you, go build up your party, I hope it becomes a huge success. I also hope that one day we can live in a country that has a multi-party system but unfortunately our country was built on the foundation of a two-party system that shows no signs of changing. Them's the facts. If you want to ignore them, again, more power to you. Go Greens!

So if I'm understanding correctly, you're having hope for and voting for a party that has repeatedly and for years not accomplished what you want them to, or what they promised, and in a lot of cases has not even tried to accomplish those things? You want to continue to get candidates in office who accomplish nothing? As long as they have the title "Democrat"?
Well, that's one philosophy, I guess.

You are right, though, we sure don't have time to f*ck around. Too bad the Dems don't realize we don't have time to f*ck around, because all they've been doing for at least eight years is f*cking around. And I would also argue that Clinton did a ton of "f*cking around" as well. And I'm not talking about Monica.
Guess why our two party system shows no sign of changing?

[The Tower]

I try to have hope for a party that actually has a chance of getting candidates in office. If you think the Green Party can ever capture most of America's support (enough to make a difference mind you) then you're the one who is being fooled. And I have nothing against them, in fact, I agree with a lot of what they have to say. It's just that the majority of Americans are not going to fall in line with the Green Party any time soon, and with the current state of affairs we don't have time to f*ck around, ya know? But I applaud you, go build up your party, I hope it becomes a huge success. I also hope that one day we can live in a country that has a multi-party system but unfortunately our country was built on the foundation of a two-party system that shows no signs of changing. Them's the facts. If you want to ignore them, again, more power to you. Go Greens!
I, too, think the Green party is awesome. I think the key to going Green is to understand reality. Vote Green in your local elections where there is a chance of success and the ability to grow a political base. Hopefully, you'll be able to vote Green is some statewide elections. But vote Democrat in presidential, senatorial and (in most cases) house elections. I don't think that such a betrayal to one's principles.

[The Tower]

You are right, though, we sure don't have time to f*ck around. Too bad the Dems don't realize we don't have time to f*ck around, because all they've been doing for at least eight years is f*cking around.
Well, I wouldn't say they've been ****ing around, I would say they've been shut out of the process by the ****ty republican controlled congress. Democrats are banned from consensus meetings between the senate and house, etc., etc., etc. You can't blame them for doing nothing when they don't have the opportunity.

Guess why our two party system shows no sign of changing?
If all of those great people of conscience had voted for Gore instead of Nader we wouldn't even be having this conversation right now.

[amber]

I, too, think the Green party is awesome. I think the key to going Green is to understand reality. Vote Green in your local elections where there is a chance of success and the ability to grow a political base. Hopefully, you'll be able to vote Green is some statewide elections. But vote Democrat in presidential, senatorial and (in most cases) house elections. I don't think that such a betrayal to one's principles.
I think it's a betrayal, but that is what I do anyway. Although there really isn't much reason for me to vote Dem for presidents anyway, what with the electoral college, and CA always being blue anyway. So, next time, Green for me.

I still think people's logic for doing so is flawed, though.

[Rickypt]

Vote Green in your local elections where there is a chance of success and the ability to grow a political base.

Unless your many of your local Green candidates suck like here.:lol:

[Rickypt]

Even Boxer didn't vote against the Patriot Act, or the war, and she didn't say anything when Clinton used military force in Bosnia, nor has she spoken up about wire tapping.

She voted against the war and she is one of the few senators who has spoken up about wire tapping, so far as to call for investigation into potential impeachment.

[amber]

She voted against the war and she is one of the few senators who has spoken up about wire tapping, so far as to call for investigation into potential impeachment.
Sorry, I meant she didn't speak up about the war. Also, most of congress, if not all, knew about the wire tapping since 2001 +. Also, my source wants to know when she spoke up about the wire tapping, and says it must have been fairly recent, which is pretty lame. Also, there's still the Patriot Act. Basically, my point still holds - even the democrats we consider our most liberal drop the ball, or don't pick it up.

[amber]

Unless your many of your local Green candidates suck like here.:lol:
I thought Camejo was excellent. :shrug: Or are you speaking of more local elections?

[Rickypt]

I thought Camejo was excellent. :shrug: Or are you speaking of more local elections?

More local, like School Board and Board of Supes.

Although Camejo never should have participated in that sham of a recall. As gross as he was, Gray Davis won the election fair and square in '02 and there was no justification for a recall effort to begin a few weeks after that election.

[Rickypt]

Basically, my point still holds - even the democrats we consider our most liberal drop the ball, or don't pick it up.

Without question. Boxer also spoke out against gay marriage in '04.

[amber]

More local, like School Board and Board of Supes.

Although Camejo never should have participated in that sham of a recall. As gross as he was, Gray Davis won the election fair and square in '02 and there was no justification for a recall effort to begin a few weeks after that election.
I wouldn't really fault him for that, though. Of course I agree about the recall. I'm glad he participated b/c then there was someone in the debates to say something intelligent besides Huffington.
But - we checked the Boxer thing - all we could find is that she was questioning whether the wiretap was an impeachable offense - which is lame - it's like asking...."is the sky blue?" for all the effect it has. :shrug: Heck, Joe Biden objected to the tap more than Boxer....I can't believe she spoke out against gay marriage! Dayam!

[Rickypt]

^ I just remember watching Boxer give a 30 minute speech on the Senate floor in December where she was great on the wire-tapping thing and war in Iraq. Of course, it's just compared to all the other drearies in the Senate. No doubt, she has let us down at times. I'd still probably vote for her over a Green challenger because she does the best to pull the Dems to the left.

BTW, I'm pretty sure she's changed her tune on gay marriage.

[amber]

^ I just remember watching Boxer give a 30 minute speech on the Senate floor in December where she was great on the wire-tapping thing and war in Iraq. Of course, it's just compared to all the other drearies in the Senate. No doubt, she has let us down at times. I'd still probably vote for her over a Green challenger because she does the best to pull the Dems to the left.

BTW, I'm pretty sure she's changed her tune on gay marriage.

Yes, I think she has, too. :) Still, though - '04? That was like, 2 seconds ago. How strange.

[Rickypt]

Here's a perfect exhibit of what's wrong with the Dems. This is Nancy Pelosi's "prebuttal" to the State of the Union speech. It is mamby-pamby and allows the GOP to set the agenda for discussion.

An example: don't compare the Dems' health care agenda to Bush's as "making it easier for small business to purchase insurance" vs. his stupid medical savings accounts.

Say this: "Everyone in this country deserves to have access to quality health care regardless of ability to pay and Democrats won't rest until this happens".

Anyway, I find this thing by Pelosi to be very weak and of course people won't flock to the Democrats as alternatives this November if this is what we have to offer.

http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases/Jan06/prebuttal.html

[The Tower]

Also, most of congress, if not all, knew about the wire tapping since 2001 +.
They did not. It had been kept secret from congress and general what's his name from the NSA testified before congress that the NSA was following FISA procedure which was a lie and is a crime. Until this whole thing was leaked by the NY Times, the administration's stated position was that they were getting court orders for all of their electronic surveillance. All lies and all illegal.

[amber]

Edit - source says congressional leadership at least knew, Pelosi kept her mouth shut b/c no one else was saying anything, and whoever knew, knew they were not getting court orders.
http://www.alternet.org/story/30600/

[estranged4life]

with all the current BS in politics (Sometimes from both parties) I am ever so glad I am an "Independent"...

[The Tower]

Edit - source says congressional leadership at least knew, Pelosi kept her mouth shut b/c no one else was saying anything, and whoever knew, knew they were not getting court orders.
http://www.alternet.org/story/30600/
The only people in congress who knew anything about this was the House Intelligence Committee and they are required by law to keep those briefings secret from the rest of congress.

That's why Dubya was so pissed that the NY Times printed the article that revealed this whole thing. The Bush administration tried to pressure the NY Times to not print the article, but they gave them the finger.

[amber]

The only people in congress who knew anything about this was the House Intelligence Committee and they are required by law to keep those briefings secret from the rest of congress.

That's why Dubya was so pissed that the NY Times printed the article that revealed this whole thing. The Bush administration tried to pressure the NY Times to not print the article, but they gave them the finger.

They knew, they could've said. Did you read the link? "The failure of these Democrats to risk personal censure for the greater public good ... give[s] the impression there is actually only one political party in the U.S., and that opposition and dissent on issues of security in Washington are only a mirage."

[The Tower]

They knew, they could've said. Did you read the link? "The failure of these Democrats to risk personal censure for the greater public good ... give[s] the impression there is actually only one political party in the U.S., and that opposition and dissent on issues of security in Washington are only a mirage."
They couldn't have publicly stated what they knew. The briefing's were classified. They would have been breaking the law. They wouldn't have been able to prosecute this level of criminal activity if they had revealed it. The administration would have skewered them- the entire focus would have been on how they revealed classified information, not on how the administration had broken the law. Look at how the administration is handling it right now. Their initial focus was on rooting out the whistle-blowers from the NSA and punishing them and their latest tactic is outright lying about their actions and how they interacted with congress regarding this issue.

This whole Spygate thing is not the fault of Democrats. The Bush Administration bears complete responsibility for this whole fiasco.

[cliffdweller]

I, too, think the Green party is awesome. I think the key to going Green is to understand reality. Vote Green in your local elections where there is a chance of success and the ability to grow a political base. Hopefully, you'll be able to vote Green is some statewide elections. But vote Democrat in presidential, senatorial and (in most cases) house elections. I don't think that such a betrayal to one's principles.


A friend of mine actually ran on the Green ticket for a house seat in Dallas. She didn't win, some a*sshole Republican did.

[cliffdweller]

So if I'm understanding correctly, you're having hope for and voting for a party that has repeatedly and for years not accomplished what you want them to, or what they promised, and in a lot of cases has not even tried to accomplish those things? You want to continue to get candidates in office who accomplish nothing? As long as they have the title "Democrat"?
Well, that's one philosophy, I guess.

Nope, that's not what I said. I'm not going to keep beating a dead horse ad nauseum. If you choose not to read my posts carefully then forget it.

[irishgrl]

I, too, think the Green party is awesome. I think the key to going Green is to understand reality. Vote Green in your local elections where there is a chance of success and the ability to grow a political base. Hopefully, you'll be able to vote Green is some statewide elections. But vote Democrat in presidential, senatorial and (in most cases) house elections. I don't think that such a betrayal to one's principles.

nicely put, and I agree 100%. :nod:

[dissention]

Look, I'm not ferociously defending anyone, however, I am very much in support of Democracy and I will hold out hope that everyone else out there is too. We are a 2 party system, as wonderful as it would be to be a multi-party system, it is still a pie in the sky dream that ain't gonna come to fruition any time soon. So we gotta work with what we got right? I believe it is not practical and/or pragmatic to vote for unviable candidates (especially in these troublesome times) when we need to get actual work done out there, in other words as beautiful a principal as "voting your conscious is" it is not helping the current situation in this country, it is only making it worse. See, principals are nothing if they don't get work done and I don't see parties like the Green party actually doing anything that is making a dent in the actual state of affairs or political climate in this country. And furthermore, if people continue to be swayed by the rhetoric that the Democratic party is just another Republican party in sheep's clothing then it will only serve to further polarize the country causing an even bigger rift for Dems who ARE trying to make a difference. Yes, the Democratic party is weak right now, but let's not give up on it, we need to work to make it stronger (I know that sounds cheesy but bear with me please) :angel:

Voting for Democrats is not helping the current situation, it is only keeping the situation the same.

The Democratic party is not "weak right now," it's been weak as far back as I can remember. It's only since 2000 that it's really become a joke of party.

[dissention]

Green doesn't make a dent exactly because of people who have the mindset that Green doesn't make a dent, and therefore won't switch to Green. Also, it's not "rhetoric" that Dems are just repubs dressed up in sheeps clothing. Besides a few exceptions (and I mean a few) it's the truth. Both Dems and Pubs work for big money, the Dems just try to pretend they don't. (again, with a few exceptions) Even Boxer didn't vote against the Patriot Act, or the war, and she didn't say anything when Clinton used military force in Bosnia, nor has she spoken up about wire tapping. Those are just examples of Dem being lame, and supposedly one of our best Dems, too.

I think the losingest fight is not the Green's agenda, the losingest fight is thinking Democrats can be "turned around" or somehow swayed into being more liberal. That's the biggest farce of all. The Dems aren't "doing anything that is making a dent in the actual state of affairs or political climate in this country" either, and if you think they are, you're being fooled.

When you're on, YOU ARE ON.

[dissention]

Well, I wouldn't say they've been ****ing around, I would say they've been shut out of the process by the ****ty republican controlled congress.

I see the Randi Rhodes rhetoric is spreading. Oy.

[irishgrl]

Sorry, I meant she didn't speak up about the war. Also, most of congress, if not all, knew about the wire tapping since 2001 +. Also, my source wants to know when she spoke up about the wire tapping, and says it must have been fairly recent, which is pretty lame. Also, there's still the Patriot Act. Basically, my point still holds - even the democrats we consider our most liberal drop the ball, or don't pick it up.

Barbara Boxer spoke up about the wire tapping, calling for impeachment about a month ago, after speaking with Dean, and several Con Law Scholars. she did this right about the time the info came to light that Bush totally bypassed the special court that was supposed to have issued warrants. there was a very informative thread on this forum at that time, have your "source" read THAT.
:shrug:

Amber I think this is the first time you've acted as a mouthpiece for someone else's opinions. Ive seen it all.

[amber]

They couldn't have publicly stated what they knew. The briefing's were classified. They would have been breaking the law. They wouldn't have been able to prosecute this level of criminal activity if they had revealed it. The administration would have skewered them- the entire focus would have been on how they revealed classified information, not on how the administration had broken the law. Look at how the administration is handling it right now. Their initial focus was on rooting out the whistle-blowers from the NSA and punishing them and their latest tactic is outright lying about their actions and how they interacted with congress regarding this issue.

This whole Spygate thing is not the fault of Democrats. The Bush Administration bears complete responsibility for this whole fiasco.
If you read the link, you'll see that it's been done before, and so is possible. :shrug: You may be right about the consequences, but that doesn't make it okay, and to me it doesn't really make it excusable. Not the Dems fault, maybe, but they are complicit.

[irishgrl]

To say that the Dems on the House Intelligence Committee were "complicit" for not telling what they knew is to engage in a bit of generalizing. How many Dems were ON that Committee? And do we know who leaked the story to the NYT? Was it a Dem? possibly there is some redemption possible for the Dem party after all. Granted, they deserve much of your scorn, but to paint them with the same black brush as the Rethugs is just unreasonable. It wasnt a Dem Administration that perpetrated this glaring detour around the law, it was the NeoCon Rethugs. With Dumbya at the Helm.

The Dems cant hold a CANDLE to the shenanigans of the GOP. nossir.

[amber]

Nope, that's not what I said. I'm not going to keep beating a dead horse ad nauseum. If you choose not to read my posts carefully then forget it.
I didn't say you said that, I said "if I'm understanding correctly." What you said is that you still have hopes for the Dem party, and what I said is that your reason and hopes for the Dem party are misplaced and futile.
Believe me, I read your post carefully. And my understanding of the consequences of your expressed choice regarding supporting Dems is what I answered with.

[amber]

Well, I wouldn't say they've been ****ing around, I would say they've been shut out of the process by the ****ty republican controlled congress. Democrats are banned from consensus meetings between the senate and house, etc., etc., etc. You can't blame them for doing nothing when they don't have the opportunity.


If all of those great people of conscience had voted for Gore instead of Nader we wouldn't even be having this conversation right now.

I absolutely believe what you said in your first paragraph is a major cop out. It's clear to me Dems don't usually do the right things when they can, let alone try to when they "can't". They don't do anything for political and economic reasons, IMO. They could definitely expend greater efforts than they are.
Oh, and as far as the Nader thing - I'm pretty sure the repubs would have found a way to steal the election no matter what, just like they had already planned. I think, especially considering the electoral college, that blaming nader voters is falacious.

[dissention]

Um, no- not really. Being in the minority in both houses, the Democrats have no power to control anything. There hasn't been "complicity". There have been some who are creeps (Ben Nelson, anyone?). However, I believe the majority of the Democrats in congress have been consistently dissenting against what the majority and the administration have been doing- it's just that their statements have no power whatsoever. Patrick Leahy ripped the **** out of Alito, but with a 10 to 8 republican majority on the judiciary committee he has no power to altar anything.


Democrats supported No Child Left Behind by a majority number.
Democrats supported the war in Iraq by a majority number.
Democrats supported Bush's tax cuts by a majority number. Four times.
Democrats supported the Patriot Act by a majority number.
Democrats supported invading Afghanistan by a majority number.
Democrats support inscreasing military spending by a majority number.
Democrats oppose national health care and still have yet to do much of anything to make it affordable, mostly because they're in the pockets of the lobbyists.
Democrats support faith-based initiatives.
Democrats support the so-called War On Drugs.
Democrats support the Defense of Marriage Act.
Democrats support bank deregulation.
Democrats oppose election reform, even after the 2000 election.
Democrats opposed a congressional investigation into the 2000 election; not a single senator stood with the Congressional Black Caucus.
Democrats oppose real campaign finance reform.
Democrats on the 9/11 Commission were involved in covering up information, most notably Able Danger.
A number of high profile Democrats, like Barack Obama, have voiced their support for striking Iran with missiles.

I could go on and on and on and on. Shockingly, they have all of these things in common with the neocons. And they take their cues from the DLC, i.e. big business.

[irishgrl]

Democrats supported No Child Left Behind by a majority number.
Democrats supported the war in Iraq by a majority number.
Democrats supported Bush's tax cuts by a majority number. Four times.
Democrats supported the Patriot Act by a majority number.
Democrats supported invading Afghanistan by a majority number.
Democrats support inscreasing military spending by a majority number.
Democrats oppose national health care and still have yet to do much of anything to make it affordable, mostly because they're in the pockets of the lobbyists.
Democrats support faith-based initiatives. (REALLY?)
Democrats support the so-called War On Drugs. (IM NOT SURE THIS IS A BAD THING?)
Democrats support the Defense of Marriage Act.
Democrats support bank deregulation.
Democrats oppose election reform, even after the 2000 election. (WHICH VERSION OF REFORM DO THEY OPPOSE?)
Democrats opposed a congressional investigation into the 2000 election; not a single senator stood with the Congressional Black Caucus.
Democrats oppose real campaign finance reform.
Democrats on the 9/11 Commission were involved in covering up information, most notably Able Danger.
A number of high profile Democrats, like Barack Obama, have voiced their support for striking Iran with missiles.

I could go on and on and on and on. Shockingly, they have all of these things in common with the neocons. And they take their cues from the DLC, i.e. big business.


I'd appreciate some facts/links to back up your assertions.

[dissention]

Not really. Byrd has a reputation of believing in the sanctity of the constitution. Alito doesn't give a **** about the constitution. Regardless of other issues, there's the rub.

She understands the reality of the religiosity of West Virginia. She talked about that last night. She was urging Byrd to have some balls and stick to his committment to the integrity of the Senate and go out with a bang- i.e. forget about getting re-elected at his advanced age. It ain't gonna happen, but at lease she can desire for it to happen.

She has blinders on when it comes to anything involving the Democrats. Her ferocious support for Hillary Clinton is downright comical. I'm curious as to why she's urging a member of the Gang of 14 to support a filibuster of Alito in the first place. Byrd agreed to only filibustering nominees under "extraordinary circumstances," and with his conservative track record (to the point where he was considered for a post on the Supreme Court by Nixon), it's silly to think that he sees any of the current cirumstances or anything about Alito to be "extraordinary" enough to warrant a filibuster. She was urging the wrong man to "have some balls."

[dissention]

I'd appreciate some facts/links to back up your assertions.

I'm not your goddamned secretary.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

I'm not your goddamned secretary.

THATS administrative assistant biotch!



:xoxo:

[dissention]

I absolutely believe what you said in your first paragraph is a major cop out. It's clear to me Dems don't usually do the right things when they can, let alone try to when they "can't". They don't do anything for political and economic reasons, IMO. They could definitely expend greater efforts than they are.
Oh, and as far as the Nader thing - I'm pretty sure the repubs would have found a way to steal the election no matter what, just like they had already planned. I think, especially considering the electoral college, that blaming nader voters is falacious.

Maybe if the Democrats actually put quality things on their agenda, like repealing Taft-Hartley restrictions, people wouldn't feel such a need to run to candidates like Nader and then be labeled "spoilers" by the weak party that lost the election.

[irishgrl]

I'm not your goddamned secretary.
no, its just good form. And we've all done it. If its too much to ask you to support your statements, then ok. I just thought you had drawn your information from a particular source. Apparently you can rely on memory. lucky you.

btw, the Dems DO have legitimate items on their agenda, to wit:
Democratic Agenda (http://www.democrats.org/agenda.html)

[dissention]

no, its just good form. And we've all done it. If its too much to ask you to support your statements, then ok.

I have nothing to say to you, Mary. You're a broken record in these conversations, whether it's making up numerous excuses for Clinton bombing aspirin factories or espousing absurdist reasons for supporting a dead party. You are patently incapable of recognizing the glaring flaws of the Democratic party and holding them responsible for said flaws. Instead, you brush them aside as if they were nothing but mere burps in the wind and of no importance to you because they could possibly interfere with the moral superiority you feel you hold over the Republicans.

I think I've proven myself to be respectable enough in these conversations to the point where I don't have to post a link to back up every one of my posts. You sure as **** don't. I'd find half the stuff you say to be satirical if it wasn't so obviously serious.

[The Tower]

I see the Randi Rhodes rhetoric is spreading. Oy.
For someone who relishes rhetoric with much gusto, I find this comment quite ironic.

If you read the link, you'll see that it's been done before, and so is possible. :shrug:
True. However, the circumstances are hardly the same.

"Such whistle-blowing is rare but not unprecedented. In 1995, for instance, then-Rep. Robert G. Torricelli, D-N.J., was told by a State Department employee that a paid CIA informant, Guatemalan Col. Julio Roberto Alpirez, was involved in the killing of an American citizen's husband. Then a member of the House Intelligence Committee, Torricelli complained the CIA was doing nothing to uncover the facts of the case for the widow, Jennifer Harbury."

Torricelli was whistle-blowing against a single case of criminal behavior against the CIA with Bill Clinton as president. That doesn't compare to the situation that the senate Democrats had to face.

You may be right about the consequences, but that doesn't make it okay, and to me it doesn't really make it excusable. Not the Dems fault, maybe, but they are complicit.
I'm not saying that it isn't wrong. I think it sucks that the situation was such that they didn't bring it to light. However, I think that the nation needs to stay focused on who designed, controlled and executed these crimes- the Bush administration.

They could definitely expend greater efforts than they are.
I agree. However, I don't think the situation with the Democrats is as dire and black and white and some would have us believe. Yes, John Kerry absolutely failed as a presidential candidate and it was his fault. He was handed a golden situation and crapped all over it. But that doesn't mean that the democratic party should just be chucked.

Oh, and as far as the Nader thing - I'm pretty sure the repubs would have found a way to steal the election no matter what, just like they had already planned.
I wouldn't put it past them.

I think, especially considering the electoral college, that blaming nader voters is falacious.
I believe the Nader numbers would have clinched crucial races (Florida) which would have changed the electoral count. There were several factors that resulted in that ****ed up non-election and you can't deny that Nader was not one of them.

Democrats supported the war in Iraq by a majority number.
Misleading. Democrats supported the Bush administation's use of force only after going to the U.N. for resolution support. Bush never did.

Democrats supported the Patriot Act by a majority number.
Anyone who didn't support it would have been strung up as a traitor during that immediate post 9/11 euphoria. No one in congress even READ the Patriot Act. It never, ever should have been passed by anyone- but to ignore political realities is extremely naive.

Democrats supported invading Afghanistan by a majority number.
I think most people supported invading Afghanistan. I think you supported it (somewhere back in old threads, though I'm not 100% sure).

Democrats oppose national health care
I believe a significant majority of Americans oppose national health care. I could be wrong, though. I support national health care.

...and still have yet to do much of anything to make it affordable, mostly because they're in the pockets of the lobbyists.
Agreed. And that is a ****ty, ****ty thing that I hope gets fixed.

Democrats support faith-based initiatives.
Some, but not most.

Democrats support the so-called War On Drugs.
Again, some, but not most.

Democrats support the Defense of Marriage Act.
Possibly when it passed years ago, but I doubt it would fly today.

Democrats opposed a congressional investigation into the 2000 election; not a single senator stood with the Congressional Black Caucus.
The senate democrats should be ashamed of themselves for that. However, just who were the members of the CBC that called the election results a fraud?? Hmmm, let's see.... could it be, oh, I don't know..... Democrats????

Democrats oppose real campaign finance reform.
Tell that to Russ Feingold.

I could go on and on and on and on. Shockingly, they have all of these things in common with the neocons. And they take their cues from the DLC, i.e. big business.
Yep. Politics is a very dirty business, always has been, always will be- especially in today's times. However, I'll still stick to the good fight and try not to lose hope. Otherwise, what's the point?

[dissention]

btw, the Dems DO have legitimate items on their agenda, to wit:
Democratic Agenda (http://www.democrats.org/agenda.html)

PR bull**** is what it is. You can polish a turd, but in the end, it's still processed ****.

[irishgrl]

PR bull**** is what it is. You can polish a turd, but in the end, it's still processed ****.
kinda like your missing link eh?

you cant have it both ways. you cant say they dont have an agenda and then pooh pooh the agenda when its presented to you. No matter how you characterize the political climate, its impossible to accomplish ANYTHING unless you have some maneuvering room which the Dems sadly have not had much of.

btw: methinks you know entirely too much about turds.

[snowman]

Fukc those stupid republicans and fukc that piece of **** Alito.

Filibuster that motherfukcer!!!!

In a year from now, this will all have blown over. Five years from now, you won't even remember who this guy is...

[amber]

Oh, by the way my friend gave me a good site today, here it is. I guess some of you rad people might know about it already.
alternet.org. I'm reading cool environmental stuff right now.

[irishgrl]

In a year from now, this will all have blown over. Five years from now, you won't even remember who this guy is...
Unless Roe is overturned.

[irishgrl]

Oh, by the way my friend gave me a good site today, here it is. I guess some of you rad people might know about it already.
alternet.org. I'm reading cool environmental stuff right now.

Thanks for the link Amber, Im going to spend some time looking it over, it looks interesting....:thumbsup:

[dissention]

Misleading. Democrats supported the Bush administation's use of force only after going to the U.N. for resolution support. Bush never did.

You obviously didn't read H Joint Res 114.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:5:./temp/~c107PujZqi::

It clearly states that while Bush committed to work with the United Nations on September 12, 2002 to enforce United Nations Resolutions on disarmament, he has full discretion on use of the Armed Forces in Iraq. It did not require Bush to get UN Security Council approval; it even praised his diploamtic efforts! It gave him unilateral authority to declare war. Even if Saddam had agreed to comply with the resolutions, H Joint Res 114 was so broad that it afforded Bush the opportunity to strike Iraq after compliance.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

They were utter dolts for giving him such discretion.

Anyone who didn't support it would have been strung up as a traitor during that immediate post 9/11 euphoria. No one in congress even READ the Patriot Act. It never, ever should have been passed by anyone- but to ignore political realities is extremely naive.

Weren't you the one who was just trumpeting "integrity" in the face of self-serving political maneuvering?

I think most people supported invading Afghanistan. I think you supported it (somewhere back in old threads, though I'm not 100% sure).

Bull****ing**** I did. I was, and still am, 100% opposed to invading Afghanistan at the time they did so. We should have been in there within a week, not two ****ing months later.

I believe a significant majority of Americans oppose national health care. I could be wrong, though. I support national health care.

I honestly don't know if the majority of Americans oppose national health care.

Agreed. And that is a ****ty, ****ty thing that I hope gets fixed.

Awww, but Pelosi promises to fix it for us. :rolleyes:

Some, but not most.

Most. Even Hillary Clinton supports them. Who could possibly forget the spectacle she put on after Election '04 where she praised faith-based initiatives to her high heavens? Most Dems support them because they seem to think they'll score points with the moderates. It's nothing but DLC swill.

Again, some, but not most.

Are you for real? Bill ****ing Clinton declared war on medicinal marijuana!

Possibly when it passed years ago,

Possibly? Look at the numbers, dude.

but I doubt it would fly today.

I'm sure the DLC would disagree with you.

The senate democrats should be ashamed of themselves for that. However, just who were the members of the CBC that called the election results a fraud?? Hmmm, let's see.... could it be, oh, I don't know..... Democrats????

Yeah, TRUE Democrats, not spineless wimps who pander to the moderates and leave their base & principles for dead. Oh, how few and far between they are.

Tell that to Russ Feingold.

Not good enough if you ask me.

Yep. Politics is a very dirty business, always has been, always will be- especially in today's times. However, I'll still stick to the good fight and try not to lose hope. Otherwise, what's the point?

You stick to the good fight, more power to ya. I'll stick with the fight that actually gives a flying turkey about the people of this country, not the corporations and the greedy fukcs who do nothing unless it's beneficial to them.

[dissention]

Unless Roe is overturned.

You're delusional if you think that would ever happen.

[irishgrl]

You're delusional if you think that would ever happen.


What makes you say that? that is the ONE thing the GOP is rabid about due to the Religious Right pushing them on..

I'd like to think its safe but it sure doesnt seem that way with Alito about to be confirmed...once he helps overturn it, mission accomplished. The Religious Right has no more agenda (at least not one as "hot button"...no, not even gay marriage, tho I know its crucial for many here, you still dont comprise over half the population)

[dissention]

What makes you say that?

Because that issue performs better for them than Chaka Khan at the RNC. It ain't never gonna happen.

[irishgrl]

You obviously didn't read H Joint Res 114.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:5:./temp/~c107PujZqi::

It clearly states that while Bush committed to work with the United Nations on September 12, 2002 to enforce United Nations Resolutions on disarmament, he has full discretion on use of the Armed Forces in Iraq. It did not require Bush to get UN Security Council approval; it even praised his diploamtic efforts! It gave him unilateral authority to declare war. Even if Saddam had agreed to comply with the resolutions, H Joint Res 114 was so broad that it afforded Bush the opportunity to strike Iraq after compliance.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

They were utter dolts for giving him such discretion.



Weren't you the one who was just trumpeting "integrity" in the face of self-serving political maneuvering?



Bull****ing**** I did. I was, and still am, 100% opposed to invading Afghanistan at the time they did so. We should have been in there within a week, not two ****ing months later.



I honestly don't know if the majority of Americans oppose national health care.



Awww, but Pelosi promises to fix it for us. :rolleyes:



Most. Even Hillary Clinton supports them. Who could possibly forget the spectacle she put on after Election '04 where she praised faith-based initiatives to her high heavens? Most Dems support them because they seem to think they'll score points with the moderates. It's nothing but DLC swill.



Are you for real? Bill ****ing Clinton declared war on medicinal marijuana!



Possibly? Look at the numbers, dude.



I'm sure the DLC would disagree with you.



Yeah, TRUE Democrats, not spineless wimps who pander to the moderates and leave their base & principles for dead. Oh, how few and far between they are.



Not good enough if you ask me.



You stick to the good fight, more power to ya. I'll stick with the fight that actually gives a flying turkey about the people of this country, not the corporations and the greedy fukcs who do nothing unless it's beneficial to them.

Diss, the Democratic party that I remember cared about the little guy. the immigrant, the minority, the poor, the uneducated. The Democratic Party I remember was all about elevating the disadvantaged to a point where they could be self sufficient. THAT'S the Democratic Party I support. Its still in there somewhere, even tho lately its been lost inside the GOP house of mirrors. The Democratic Party I remember was composed of idealists, of dreamers, of Union members, of fringe groups that wanted a voice and representation.

Somewhere in the apathetic mess that the Party seems to have degenerated into, is the kernel of idealism, of hope that was the Democratic Party at its best. Im sure Im not alone when I say that I believe the Party still has the seeds of greatness within. All of your scorn and derision sounds to me like a closet Dem who has been disappointed. If that's true, I dont have the words to say how much I wish it were different. If your only task in life is to serve as a burr under the Democratic Saddle, then we can only benefit! Keep up the good work.

[irishgrl]

Because that issue performs better for them than Chaka Khan at the RNC. It ain't never gonna happen.
I think you're wrong. I think it can be used as a springboard to get more votes.

and unfortunately, the young women of today dont realize what they are about to lose and as such, are playing into the hands of the master prestidigitators.

[stargazer99]

I'd like to think its safe but it sure doesnt seem that way with Alito about to be confirmed...once he helps overturn it, mission accomplished. The Religious Right has no more agenda (at least not one as "hot button"...no, not even gay marriage, tho I know its crucial for many here, you still dont comprise over half the population)

I think the bolded part is why Roe may be safe. If the religious right is given everything they want, what's to keep them around as part of the Repugs' "base"?

[irishgrl]

I think the bolded part is why Roe may be safe. If the religious right is given everything they want, what's to keep them around as part of the Repugs' "base"?
at that point tho, are they really needed? if it accomplished the goal of overturning Roe, then who needs the Religious Right Wackos anyway? The GOP survived without the Religious Right for many many years before and will again.

To think that the GOP wont be able or willing to overturn Roe simply due to an unwillingness to lose their political base is naive. there will still be enuff of a base to ride that roller coaster all the way to hell.

[dissention]

Diss, the Democratic party that I remember cared about the little guy. the immigrant, the minority, the poor, the uneducated. The Democratic Party I remember was all about elevating the disadvantaged to a point where they could be self sufficient. THAT'S the Democratic Party I support. Its still in there somewhere, even tho lately its been lost inside the GOP house of mirrors. The Democratic Party I remember was composed of idealists, of dreamers, of Union members, of fringe groups that wanted a voice and representation.

Somewhere in the apathetic mess that the Party seems to have degenerated into, is the kernel of idealism, of hope that was the Democratic Party at its best. Im sure Im not alone when I say that I believe the Party still has the seeds of greatness within. All of your scorn and derision sounds to me like a closet Dem who has been disappointed. If that's true, I dont have the words to say how much I wish it were different. If your only task in life is to serve as a burr under the Democratic Saddle, then we can only benefit! Keep up the good work.

I'm not a closet Dem and never was. When I was a member of that party, I didn't keep it a secret. When I left that party after the last election, I didn't keep it a secret, either.

The Democratic party you remember is long gone, unfortunately. That is my opinion. It is no longer a party that fights for the working-class, it is a party that puts big business above all else and only when big business is appeased will the lowly proletarians get a few crumbs tossed their way. Are those crumbs bigger than anything tossed by the Republican party? Yes. But they are not enough for me to be complicit in what I see as the constant raping of the American public. They need to offer action, not inaction. They need to offer change, not stagnation. They need to offer a genuine sense of care and empathy, not an emotion-triggering talking point that offends in it's sterility.

I realize that people think voting for Green candidates or Independent candidates is akin to wasting your vote, and I'm fine with that. I stopped seeing a difference between the two parties in our current system quite a while back and I'm now perfectly content to vote for what I think is right, not for who might win. If the Democrats cannot offer me anything much different than the Republicans, I feel as if voting for them will be wasting my votes. At least now I can sleep better at night knowing that I didn't sell myself out.

[irishgrl]

I'm not a closet Dem and never was. When I was a member of that party, I didn't keep it a secret. When I left that party after the last election, I didn't keep it a secret, either.

The Democratic party you remember is long gone, unfortunately. That is my opinion. It is no longer a party that fights for the working-class, it is a party that puts big business above all else and only when big business is appeased will the lowly proletarians get a few crumbs tossed their way. Are those crumbs bigger than anything tossed by the Republican party? Yes. But they are not enough for me to be complicit in what I see as the constant raping of the American public. They need to offer action, not inaction. They need to offer change, not stagnation. They need to offer a genuine sense of care and empathy, not an emotion-triggering talking point that offends in it's sterility.

I realize that people think voting for Green candidates or Independent candidates is akin to wasting your vote, and I'm fine with that. I stopped seeing a difference between the two parties in our current system quite a while back and I'm now perfectly content to vote for what I think is right, not for who might win. If the Democrats cannot offer me anything much different than the Republicans, I feel as if voting for them will be wasting my votes. At least now I can sleep better at night knowing that I didn't sell myself out.


I can certainly see your point, and even agree with you to a point--that point being: you gave up, I didnt. Who's to say who is right or wrong? I dont know. We all have to go with what our conscience dictates. Is the American Public being shortchanged? Most Definitely. Are the Dems responsible? partly. But for me to turn my back would be to compound the problem, not solve it. I dont think breaking away solves anything anymore. The world is just too small now, there is no New World for anyone to conquer or inhabit or explore. We only have the World we know, as imperfect as it actually is.
And, contrary to your statement, I dont think Im selling myself out. I may not be happy with every thing my party is doing but I never liked everything my mom and dad did either! I dont have all the answers, and I guess I just have to have faith that the system will find the middle ground somehow...

thats not to say that we dont need the muckrakers like yourself Diss...because we DO. You keep us all honest. at least those of us who give a damn......

[dissention]

I can certainly see your point, and even agree with you to a point--that point being: you gave up, I didnt.

I did not give up. I realized that there was a bigger, better and more important party out there to devote my time to than the Democratic party.

Who's to say who is right or wrong? I dont know. We all have to go with what our conscience dictates. Is the American Public being shortchanged? Most Definitely. Are the Dems responsible? partly. But for me to turn my back would be to compound the problem, not solve it. I dont think breaking away solves anything anymore.

I don't think staying solves anything, either. To me, Democratic voters have become akin to the Log Cabin Republicans in a way. They vote for the representatives that they're supposed to vote for, as dictated by party affiliation, but those representatives don't represent them. How is staying and continuing to support those elected officials accomplishing anything?

The world is just too small now, there is no New World for anyone to conquer or inhabit or explore. We only have the World we know, as imperfect as it actually is.

That is patently untrue.

And, contrary to your statement, I dont think Im selling myself out.

I was referring to myself and my years of voting for idiot Democrats. Ted Kennedy not included, mind you.

I may not be happy with every thing my party is doing but I never liked everything my mom and dad did either! I dont have all the answers, and I guess I just have to have faith that the system will find the middle ground somehow...

But if there's a party out there that is truer to your convictions and principles than the Democratic party is, why not entertain the idea of joining them? That's what I don't understand.

thats not to say that we dont need the muckrakers like yourself Diss...because we DO. You keep us all honest. at least those of us who give a damn......

People like me do not keep the Democratic party honest. Even when I was a Dem, I was one of the fringe Dems that they liked to distance themselves from as much as possible while gladly taking my money and spouting bull**** promises to appease me, only to sell me and people like me out the next day when they thought they could get a moderate vote. They take people like you and I for granted, Mary. They know it and they don't care.

[irishgrl]

I did not give up. I realized that there was a bigger, better and more important party out there to devote my time to than the Democratic party Really? and what have you accomplished with your new party?

I don't think staying solves anything, either. To me, Democratic voters have become akin to the Log Cabin Republicans in a way. They vote for the representatives that they're supposed to vote for, as dictated by party affiliation, but those representatives don't represent them. How is staying and continuing to support those elected officials accomplishing anything? I dont vote for anyone I dont want to vote for. There are still plenty of good Dems to vote for, contrary to your view.

That is patently untrue. (really? why?)

I was referring to myself and my years of voting for idiot Democrats. Ted Kennedy not included, mind you. Well then. Since you have the shining Dem example of Ted Kennedy right in front of you (who gives a **** about Chappaquiddick (sp?)) why are you so disillusioned?

But if there's a party out there that is truer to your convictions and principles than the Democratic party is, why not entertain the idea of joining them? That's what I don't understand. *I havent yet made the leap that the Dem Party doesnt represent me*
People like me do not keep the Democratic party honest. Even when I was a Dem, I was one of the fringe Dems that they liked to distance themselves from as much as possible while gladly taking my money and spouting bull**** promises to appease me, only to sell me and people like me out the next day when they thought they could get a moderate vote. They take people like you and I for granted, Mary. They know it and they don't care.

OH MY GOSH, thats incredibly disgusting...no wonder you are shed of the DEM party if thats how you were treated....if they cant stand a little self examination, then they are no better than the dark side. I dont blame you for defecting if that was your experience. That hasnt been MY experience however. Im still a UNION member, Still a DIE HARD DEM, Still in favor of all the social programs, educational programs, equal opportunity programs that I remember when I was a kid. I cant help it Diss.........Im a product of my generation whether I like it or not. my brother went off to fight in Viet Nam. we worried about ever seeing him again........until Iraq, this country hasnt actually had to fight a true war.

I hope you'll reserve final judgement for the end times.

[Rickypt]

Update:

Feinstein has come out in favor of the filibuster.

Cindy Sheehan has announced she might run against Feinstein this year.

Small but energetic protest in the rain against Hillary last night.

[dissention]

Update:

Feinstein has come out in favor of the filibuster.

Aha. She must have realized that her recent statements about not supporting a filibuster didn't go over too well amongst her voters.

Cindy Sheehan has announced she might run against Feinstein this year.

That's one campaign I'll donate mightily to.

Small but energetic protest in the rain against Hillary last night.

Awesome! :thumbsup:

[amber]

I'm not a closet Dem and never was. When I was a member of that party, I didn't keep it a secret. When I left that party after the last election, I didn't keep it a secret, either.

The Democratic party you remember is long gone, unfortunately. That is my opinion. It is no longer a party that fights for the working-class, it is a party that puts big business above all else and only when big business is appeased will the lowly proletarians get a few crumbs tossed their way. Are those crumbs bigger than anything tossed by the Republican party? Yes. But they are not enough for me to be complicit in what I see as the constant raping of the American public. They need to offer action, not inaction. They need to offer change, not stagnation. They need to offer a genuine sense of care and empathy, not an emotion-triggering talking point that offends in it's sterility.

I realize that people think voting for Green candidates or Independent candidates is akin to wasting your vote, and I'm fine with that. I stopped seeing a difference between the two parties in our current system quite a while back and I'm now perfectly content to vote for what I think is right, not for who might win. If the Democrats cannot offer me anything much different than the Republicans, I feel as if voting for them will be wasting my votes. At least now I can sleep better at night knowing that I didn't sell myself out.

Hurray! Nice post.

"Greens - the real Democrats" :laugh:

[SuzeQuze]

According to Rachel Maddow (http://www.maddowonline.com) we got 12 more votes for the filibuster over the weekend. She says the switchboard to call your senators is 888-ELK-FLUTE. Silly but memorable I suppose. Call your senators to support their choice to filibuster or try to change their minds. We are only 2 votes away from a successful filibuster. The vote is today at about 4:00.

[dissention]

According to Rachel Maddow (http://www.maddowonline.com) we got 12 more votes for the filibuster over the weekend. She says the switchboard to call your senators is 888-ELK-FLUTE. Silly but memorable I suppose. Call your senators to support their choice to filibuster or try to change their minds. We are only 2 votes away from a successful filibuster. The vote is today at about 4:00.

Are you sure? These are the only ones supporting a filibuster:

Barbara Boxer (D- CA)
Dianne Feinstein (D- CA)
Christopher J. Dodd (D- CT)
Richard J. Durbin (D- IL)
Barack Obama (D- IL)
John F. Kerry (D- MA)
Edward M. Kennedy (D- MA)
Paul S. Sarbanes (D- MD)
Debbie A. Stabenow (D- MI)
Harry Reid (D- NV)
Hillary Rodham Clinton (D- NY)
Charles Schumer (D- NY)
Ron Wyden (D- OR)
Jack Reed (D- RI)
Patrick J. Leahy (D- VT)
Russell D. Feingold (D- WI)
Tom Harkin (D- IA)

That's 18.

http://www.democrats.com/alito-48

[SuzeQuze]

Are you sure? These are the only ones supporting a filibuster:

Barbara Boxer (D- CA)
Dianne Feinstein (D- CA)
Christopher J. Dodd (D- CT)
Richard J. Durbin (D- IL)
Barack Obama (D- IL)
John F. Kerry (D- MA)
Edward M. Kennedy (D- MA)
Paul S. Sarbanes (D- MD)
Debbie A. Stabenow (D- MI)
Harry Reid (D- NV)
Hillary Rodham Clinton (D- NY)
Charles Schumer (D- NY)
Ron Wyden (D- OR)
Jack Reed (D- RI)
Patrick J. Leahy (D- VT)
Russell D. Feingold (D- WI)
Tom Harkin (D- IA)

That's 18.

http://www.democrats.com/alito-48

Nope, just going by what Maddow said. She said that's what the data showed.

[DavidMn]

I'm not a closet Dem and never was. When I was a member of that party, I didn't keep it a secret. When I left that party after the last election, I didn't keep it a secret, either.

The Democratic party you remember is long gone, unfortunately. That is my opinion. It is no longer a party that fights for the working-class, it is a party that puts big business above all else and only when big business is appeased will the lowly proletarians get a few crumbs tossed their way. Are those crumbs bigger than anything tossed by the Republican party? Yes. But they are not enough for me to be complicit in what I see as the constant raping of the American public. They need to offer action, not inaction. They need to offer change, not stagnation. They need to offer a genuine sense of care and empathy, not an emotion-triggering talking point that offends in it's sterility.

I realize that people think voting for Green candidates or Independent candidates is akin to wasting your vote, and I'm fine with that. I stopped seeing a difference between the two parties in our current system quite a while back and I'm now perfectly content to vote for what I think is right, not for who might win. If the Democrats cannot offer me anything much different than the Republicans, I feel as if voting for them will be wasting my votes. At least now I can sleep better at night knowing that I didn't sell myself out.This country needs more people like you that still give a damn.:thumbsup:

[dissention]

Nope, just going by what Maddow said. She said that's what the data showed.

Now Chaffee's going to vote no on Alito!!! Harkin isn't even going to vote. :rolleyes:

[DavidMn]

:shocked: Now Chaffee's going to vote no on Alito!!! Harkin isn't even going to vote. :rolleyes:God does Harkin look old these days btw...:shocked:

[dissention]

:shocked: God does Harkin look old these days btw...:shocked:

Fukc him. How can he abstain from voting? What a weasel.

The Gang of 14 is meeting this afternoon to block a filibuster attempt. Democrats in the Gang of 14:

Joseph I. Lieberman, Connecticut
Robert C. Byrd, West Virginia
E. Benjamin Nelson, Nebraska
Mary Landrieu, Louisiana
Daniel Inouye, Hawaii
Mark Pryor, Arkansas
Ken Salazar, Colorado

[cliffdweller]

To say that the Dems on the House Intelligence Committee were "complicit" for not telling what they knew is to engage in a bit of generalizing. How many Dems were ON that Committee? And do we know who leaked the story to the NYT? Was it a Dem? possibly there is some redemption possible for the Dem party after all. Granted, they deserve much of your scorn, but to paint them with the same black brush as the Rethugs is just unreasonable. It wasnt a Dem Administration that perpetrated this glaring detour around the law, it was the NeoCon Rethugs. With Dumbya at the Helm.

The Dems cant hold a CANDLE to the shenanigans of the GOP. nossir.


Excellent, and I concur :thumbsup:

[DavidMn]

Fukc him. How can he abstain from voting? What a weasel.

The Gang of 14 is meeting this afternoon to block a filibuster attempt. Democrats in the Gang of 14:

Joseph I. Lieberman, Connecticut
Robert C. Byrd, West Virginia
E. Benjamin Nelson, Nebraska
Mary Landrieu, Louisiana
Daniel Inouye, Hawaii
Mark Pryor, Arkansas
Ken Salazar, ColoradoSo in your expert opinion, what do you see the final vote total being?

[dissention]

So in your expert opinion, what do you see the final vote total being?

There's no question that Alito is already on the bench.

[strandinthewind]

There's no question that Alito is already on the bench.

He was when he was nominated :shrug:

Did anyone really think that was not the final outcome of this?

[DavidMn]

There's no question that Alito is already on the bench.I wonder what's going to happen when John Paul Stevens dies? He's about the only one left it seems besides Ginsburg that one might be able to call a "Liberal." I wonder what he thinks these days when he's sees what's happeneing to the court.

[dissention]

Did anyone really think that was not the final outcome of this?

You'd have to be quite a dolt to have believed that he wouldn't be confirmed. Wait until he officially gets in there, it's going to be scary.

[SuzeQuze]

You'd have to be quite a dolt to have believed that he wouldn't be confirmed. Wait until he officially gets in there, it's going to be scary.

Either a dolt or willing to risk holding out hope until the fat lady has actually sung.

Yes, it'll be frightening. I hate this congress, they're all little sheep in lock step with the president except for a select few (the Kickass Caucus as the site you cited so aptly named them :laugh).

[Rickypt]

Did anyone really think that was not the final outcome of this?

Not after the Dems' pathetic performance in the hearings, no. Maybe if they spent more time making Alioto talk instead of giving endless speeches, something could have been said that would make the general public pay attention when hearing claims that he is outside the mainstream.

[strandinthewind]

Not after the Dems' pathetic performance in the hearings, no. Maybe if they spent more time making Alioto talk instead of giving endless speeches, something could have been said that would make the general public pay attention when hearing claims that he is outside the mainstream.

Interestingly, he is not horribly outside of the mainstream :shrug:

[markolas]

Interestingly, he is not horribly outside of the mainstream :shrug:

Which is frightening in and of itself.

[DavidMn]

Interestingly, he is not horribly outside of the mainstream :shrug:Yeah, when you consider what defines mainstream these days.:mad:

[markolas]

I wonder what's going to happen when John Paul Stevens dies? He's about the only one left it seems besides Ginsburg that one might be able to call a "Liberal." I wonder what he thinks these days when he's sees what's happeneing to the court.

Souter and Breyer are also both considered liberals. God help us if Stevens dies before Dubya leaves office. If he does, can't we just prop him up like they did that guy in Weekend at Bernie's??

[DavidMn]

There's no question that Alito is already on the bench.Not to get off topic, but I thought I'd ask you, what part of Massachusetts does Barney Frank represent? is it Boston?

[gldstwmn]

Ken Salazar, Colorado

I'll never vote for him again.

[Rickypt]

Interestingly, he is not horribly outside of the mainstream :shrug:

I think wanting to overturn Roe is outside the mainstream. Majority of Americans don't want that. His failure to say that Roe is settled law opened up a big opportunity for the Dems. Instead they made long pompous speeches about themselves and then Kennedy did that ridiculous stunt about the alumni group without having all his ducks in a row beforehand.

[Rickypt]

I guess I'll predict a 58-41 vote, with Harkin abstaining (wtf?)

5 Dems voting yes and 2 Republicans voting no.

[DavidMn]

I think wanting to overturn Roe is outside the mainstream. Majority of Americans don't want that. His failure to say that Roe is settled law opened up a big opportunity for the Dems. Instead they made long pompous speeches about themselves and then Kennedy did that ridiculous stunt about the alumni group without having all his ducks in a row beforehand.I wouldnt be surprised knowing his reputation if he wasnt slightly intoxicated when he made that statement.

[dissention]

Not to get off topic, but I thought I'd ask you, what part of Massachusetts does Barney Frank represent? is it Boston?

No, he's a 4th district rep; Bristol, Middlesex, Norfolk, and Plymouth counties. Boston is in the 8th and 9th districts in Suffolk county.

[DavidMn]

No, he's a 4th district rep; Bristol, Middlesex, Norfolk, and Plymouth counties. Boston is in the 8th and 9th districts in Suffolk county.He's been there for about 25 years right?

[dissention]

He's been there for about 25 years right?

Since 1981. Despite some of his stances on Israel, I love him. And he's so funny.

[DavidMn]

Since 1981. Despite some of his stances on Israel, I love him. And he's so funny.Didnt he have an incedent with a page back in the 80's too? I seem to remember something about that. I remember thinking that I was surprised he survived it. I like him too. Seems to be a good man. How does he feel about Isreal btw?

[dissention]

Didnt he have an incedent with a page back in the 80's too? I seem to remember something about that. I remember thinking that I was surprised he survived it. I like him too. Seems to be a good man.

One of his employees was discovered to be running a prostitution business from Frank's apartment and he was fired. He got reprimanded by the House after refusing to resign, but still got something like 70% of the votes in the next election.

[gldstwmn]

I guess I'll predict a 58-41 vote, with Harkin abstaining (wtf?)

5 Dems voting yes and 2 Republicans voting no.

Apparently one of the senators from Nevada was in a car wreck so he'll be abstaining.

[stargazer99]

I guess I'll predict a 58-41 vote, with Harkin abstaining (wtf?)

5 Dems voting yes and 2 Republicans voting no.

I predict that the Repugs will trot out a sobbing Mrs. Alito before the day is over.

[dissention]

Here's a list of all the traitors in the Democratic party:

Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Conrad (D-ND)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Inouye (D-HI)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Salazar (D-CO)

Here's the man who's running against Cantwell, seems like a really good guy: http://www.votemark.org/

[dissention]

I want to marry Mike Malloy and I don't care who knows it. The man is genius. If anyone can tune in right now, I highly recommend doing so.

[sparky]

Since no one from California is here, and I hail from Oregon, I can claim no responsibility. The Democrats suck. I lost more nut last night than they collectively have between them.

[macfanken]

Here's a list of all the traitors in the Democratic party:


Here's the man who's running against Cantwell, seems like a really good guy: http://www.votemark.org/


Thanks for the info... i've supported her in the past... she's done some good things... but she's also been disappointing. i think she'll win the primary though... she's a millionaire and has lots of connections here. she'll have a tough fight against the republican though.

[SuzeQuze]

I want to marry Mike Malloy and I don't care who knows it. The man is genius. If anyone can tune in right now, I highly recommend doing so.

I missed him. Instead I was assaulted by the awful man on 7 news here with his dyed jet black hair saying how "the once powerful liberal Kennedy (yammer yammer)...". I nearly vomitted. The only reason I even had it on is because Medium was on before and I got sucked in. Damn them.

Remind me who Malloy is?

[dissention]

I missed him. Instead I was assaulted by the awful man on 7 news here with his dyed jet black hair saying how "the once powerful liberal Kennedy (yammer yammer)...". I nearly vomitted. The only reason I even had it on is because Medium was on before and I got sucked in. Damn them.

Remind me who Malloy is?

Only the greatest host on the radio. He blows away everyone in his path.

http://www.mikemalloy.com/
http://shows.airamericaradio.com/mikemalloy/
http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2003/05/13/malloy/index_np.html

He's also currently reading a chapter from Orwell's "1984" every night.

[SuzeQuze]

Only the greatest host on the radio. He blows away everyone in his path.

http://www.mikemalloy.com/
http://shows.airamericaradio.com/mikemalloy/
http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2003/05/13/malloy/index_np.html

He's also currently reading a chapter from Orwell's "1984" every night.

Thanks Hon. I will make it a point to tune in. I think Rachel Maddows is really good herself, although I do not know where she got her data yesterday on the filibuster. She's really smart and level-headed.

[dissention]

Thanks Hon. I will make it a point to tune in. I think Rachel Maddows is really good herself, although I do not know where she got her data yesterday on the filibuster. She's really smart and level-headed.

They didn't even have the 60 votes in the Senate today to stop a filibuster. They only had 58.

[SuzeQuze]

They didn't even have the 60 votes in the Senate today to stop a filibuster. They only had 58.

Does this means the Dems above wussed out for nothing?

[dissention]

Does this means the Dems above wussed out for nothing?

Pretty much. They could have followed through with a filibuster, but they didn't because they're spineless cowards.

[SuzeQuze]

Pretty much. They could have followed through with a filibuster, but they didn't because they're spineless cowards.

Clearly. I love how the righties are saying the Dems were "abusing" the filibuster. Hello? We just want answers and debate and not to push through a nominee with an obvious agenda that goes against the will of the majority of Americans. I can see how abusive that is. :rolleyes:

Incidentally, one righty pundit said that Al Franken's USO appearances are a publicity stunt to counteract the perception that progressives are anti-troop. :shocked:

[stargazer99]

Pretty much. They could have followed through with a filibuster, but they didn't because they're spineless cowards.

Yep. And I am done with them.

I read a comment on Bob Fertik's blog that Obama spoke on the floor early yesterday, and said something to the effect that it was more important to win elections than vote against cloture? Does anyone know if that's true? Even though he did end up voting against cloture, he's disappointed me more than any of them. I actually had faith that he'd be a strong leader for the Dems. I was wrong.

[dissention]

Yep. And I am done with them.

I read a comment on Bob Fertik's blog that Obama spoke on the floor early yesterday, and said something to the effect that it was more important to win elections than vote against cloture? Does anyone know if that's true? Even though he did end up voting against cloture, he's disappointed me more than any of them. I actually had faith that he'd be a strong leader for the Dems. I was wrong.

I haven't heard about that particular speech, but I heard him speak yesterday referring to Democrats as "they" and saying that "they" haven't proved "their" case.

Funny thing is that I had him pegged from day one and have been saying it all along. If reading the Democratic Underground is any indication, people are finally starting to pick up on that self-serving prick, too.

[estranged4life]

Democrats are turning into Oklahoma Democrats (aka Republicans) in which they do not have any spine whatsoever.

God, I love it :nod:

[ShangriLaTroubl]

Pretty much. They could have followed through with a filibuster, but they didn't because they're spineless cowards.

You can only filibuster so much, eventually he's still going to get who he wants in..
Chris

[ShangriLaTroubl]

Yep. And I am done with them.

I read a comment on Bob Fertik's blog that Obama spoke on the floor early yesterday, and said something to the effect that it was more important to win elections than vote against cloture? Does anyone know if that's true? Even though he did end up voting against cloture, he's disappointed me more than any of them. I actually had faith that he'd be a strong leader for the Dems. I was wrong.


The problem I see with it is, just what he said. There comes a point when the Republicans have taken over for so long, you just have to settle for things sometimes in order to get what you want in the end. The Democrats will definetely win back some seats this year, and could likely take back the Senate by 06. When your hands are basically tied, I don't think it's always the best idea to do things that will jeopardize your future elections.
However where I think they went wrong on this one is--the majority of American voters don't even follow stuff like this...and it would have never affected them anyway.

[SuzeQuze]

... However where I think they went wrong on this one is--the majority of American voters don't even follow stuff like this...and it would have never affected them anyway.

Exactly. I don't know why they thought a filibuster would hurt their election prospects. :shrug:

[estranged4life]

the majority of American voters don't even follow stuff like this

the local NBC affiliate had a recent "call-in" poll where 64% said they dont care whatsoever about Alito being nominated for the Supreme Court, 26% did care & 10% had no opinion.

Of those polled Gasoline prices & the War in Iraq were of more importance.

[ShangriLaTroubl]

Exactly. I don't know why they thought a filibuster would hurt their election prospects. :shrug:


The only thing I could guess is it's just one more Republican talking point. In the elections, esp. the midterm elections being this year--I guess they figured Republicans would use it as saying Democrats don't want a majority vote in the Senate, don't want the Senate to be able to conduct business--etc etc

[strandinthewind]

The general public may be indifferent about the actual confirmation process, but they care greatly about the prospect of liberal judges as that term is defined by Rove. To prove my point, mention a candidate's support for abortion and gay rights (which is how the filibuster whould be portrated in Oct.) and you are demonized a la the D's in the last two elections.

[SuzeQuze]

The general public may be indifferent about the actual confirmation process, but they care greatly about the prospect of liberal judges as that term is defined by Rove. To prove my point, mention a candidate's support for abortion and gay rights (which is how the filibuster whould be portrated in Oct.) and you are demonized a la the D's in the last two elections.

Right, somehow the right makes civil liberties appear ugly to some. Why people continue to believe talking points is beyond me.

[strandinthewind]

Right, somehow the right makes civil liberties appear ugly to some. Why people continue to believe talking points is beyond me.

If you want to fill your church - preach hate - sad but very true :shrug:

I mean W was defeatable in 04, but fags and abortion loving liberals got in the say and people could not see past that. They would rather elect liars who go to war and kill innocent people than have them damn gays get to uppidy. It makes me sick.

[dissention]

The only thing I could guess is it's just one more Republican talking point. In the elections, esp. the midterm elections being this year--I guess they figured Republicans would use it as saying Democrats don't want a majority vote in the Senate, don't want the Senate to be able to conduct business--etc etc

Midterm elections? Another joke. A couple of seats may change, but that's it. Democrats will not be regaining control of anything.

[dissention]

You can only filibuster so much, eventually he's still going to get who he wants in..
Chris

So much? They haven't done it once. Maybe if the party wasn't so spineless and laughable...

Alito is replacing O'Connor. That's the swing vote. Therefore, this was a big deal. Now be scared.

[estranged4life]

If you want to fill your church - preach hate - sad but very true :shrug:

I mean W was defeatable in 04, but fags and abortion loving liberals got in the say and people could not see past that. They would rather elect liars who go to war and kill innocent people than have them damn gays get to uppidy. It makes me sick.

most macho frikkin' idiots would rather bomb holes into a country then have the Queer Eye for the Straight Guys come and re-decorate their closet :rolleyes:

Like I asked someone last night, "Who are these people that voted for Bush?....Sure as hell wasnt me!!!!"

[SuzeQuze]

Alito is replacing O'Connor. That's the swing vote. Therefore, this was a big deal. Now be scared.

:distress: My prayers on this one were not answered. I've been oscilating between sadness and murderousness.

[SuzeQuze]

most macho frikkin' idiots would rather bomb holes into a country then have the Queer Eye for the Straight Guys come and re-decorate their closet :rolleyes:

Like I asked someone last night, "Who are these people that voted for Bush?....Sure as hell wasnt me!!!!"

Brian, aren't you bored with that chick in your sig yet? :lol:

[estranged4life]

Brian, aren't you bored with that chick in your sig yet? :lol:

No!!! The new Lacuna Coil album is coming out in April ("Karmacode") and I am interested in hearing Cristina Scabbia sing yet some more in her sexy as hell voice.

Brian "Guess I need a new sig picture...Let's go see what I have saved..." j.

[amber]

Brian, aren't you bored with that chick in your sig yet? :lol:
She's Italian; he'll never be sick of her. :cool: :p

[SuzeQuze]

She's Italian; he'll never be sick of her. :cool: :p

Well, I'm in the office and it looks like I'm scanning a porn site! Okay, not quite. :laugh:

[estranged4life]

Well, I'm in the office and it looks like I'm scanning a porn site! Okay, not quite. :laugh:

then dont look at my new picture then :lol:

[stargazer99]

then dont look at my new picture then :lol:

Okay, Brian, LOVE the new sig!

Like I said the other day, I think we should take up a collection for that purpose. I think all the Bush-hating Ledgies alone could probably raise enough money for someone to accomplish the mission. :nod:

[SuzeQuze]

Okay, Brian, LOVE the new sig!

Like I said the other day, I think we should take up a collection for that purpose. I think all the Bush-hating Ledgies alone could probably raise enough money for someone to accomplish the mission. :nod:

:lol: Who do you think could most easily seduce Dubya?

[stargazer99]

:lol: Who do you think could most easily seduce Dubya?


Anyone with a vial of coke who will call him King George. :p

[SuzeQuze]

Here are some links to send emails thanking your senators for voting for the filibuster and against Alito:

Thank the senators who stood against Alito

We’re not going to try to put an upbeat spin on it – Samuel Alito’s confirmation today as the newest member of the Supreme Court is bad news. But we’re in this for the long haul, and the work for a more just and sustainable America will continue.

Thousands of TrueMajority members called Congress, and tens of thousands more sent letters asking senators to stand up for a filibuster and allow for a full debate of Samuel Alito’s record. Twenty-five senators did this, and in doing so showed political courage in the face of overwhelming odds. A total of 42 stood up against Judge Alito’s appointment during the final vote.

Click here to thank the senators who stood up for a filibuster:

http://action.truemajority.org/campaign/thanksforthefight/w3sgu6b4r5bt35b?

Click here to thank all the senators who voted against Alito:

http://action.truemajority.org/campaign/thanksforyourvote/w3sgu6b4r5bt35b?

It’s important to keep working hard for the type of country we want, but it’s also important to let those who stand with us know we appreciate their efforts.

According to Ralph Neas, the head of People for the American Way, "Senators who voted to extend debate did everything possible to defeat the nomination of Samuel Alito to a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court. They also upheld the Senate’s crucial role in our system of checks and balances. We believe that time will confirm the wisdom of their attempt to defeat this nominee".

Let’s show them our gratitude by sending them a thank you letter—it’ll let them know that they did the right thing and have our support.

Thanks for all that you do,

Matt Holland
TrueMajority

P.S. To see how senators voted on Alito's confirmation, <a href="http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/senate/2/votes/2/">click here</a>.

[dissention]

Why the hell am I going to thank them for doing their jobs? Don't thank them! :laugh:

[DavidMn]

Anyone with a vial of coke who will call him King George. :p"She dont lie, she dont lie, she dont lie...."

[SuzeQuze]

Anyone with a vial of coke who will call him King George. :p

He likes the mommy type, someone who'll really take care of him. Dame Edna! :eek:

[SuzeQuze]

Why the hell am I going to thank them for doing their jobs? Don't thank them! :laugh:

Um, because, they obviously need encouragement to keep standing up for what's important. They need constant reminders of where we stand!

[dissention]

Um, because, they obviously need encouragement to keep standing up for what's important. They need constant reminders of where we stand!

They do what is beneficial for them, not us. I wouldn't be caught dead thanking them for doing the jobs that they were elected to do for once.

[SuzeQuze]

They do what is beneficial for them, not us. I wouldn't be caught dead thanking them for doing the jobs that they were elected to do for once.

Well, they've allegedly stuck their necks out so I'd like to show a little gratitude. I do see your point though. But not only am I liberal, I am liberal with praise.

[DavidMn]

Well, they've allegedly stuck their necks out so I'd like to show a little gratitude. I do see your point though. But not only am I liberal, I am liberal with praise.Eh, you Massachusetts commie's are all alike...:p :laugh:

[dissention]

Well, they've allegedly stuck their necks out so I'd like to show a little gratitude. I do see your point though. But not only am I liberal, I am liberal with praise.

They didn't stick their necks out as far as I can tell.

[SuzeQuze]

Eh, you Massachusetts commie's are all alike...:p :laugh:

I know it, huh? Friggin hippies! :lol:

[SuzeQuze]

They didn't stick their necks out as far as I can tell.

Psst, I know. But that is how it has been spun. To dissent in this administration is perceived as extremely risky. No one wants to do anything against it, including the dems! Sh*t, I need a drink. :rolleyes: It really is pathetic.

[DavidMn]

I know it, huh? Friggin hippies! :lol:You should hear my stepdad. I spent too long listening to his one sided gibberish.:lol:

[SuzeQuze]

You should hear my stepdad. I spent too long listening to his one sided gibberish.:lol:

My ex! Any time he heard "universal healthcare" he'd say "commie". Oh that was a match made in...

[DavidMn]

My ex! Any time he heard "universal healthcare" he'd say "commie". Oh that was a match made in...Hey, none of us are perfect right?:xoxo:

[DavidMn]

I swear I could eat almost every meal for the rest of my life in the North End if I could. It's that good.:nod:

[JazmenFlowers]

My ex! Any time he heard "universal healthcare" he'd say "commie". Oh that was a match made in...
memories...light the corner of my mind

I'll be Hubbell, you be Katie...no, wait, I want to be Katie...

[SuzeQuze]

memories...light the corner of my mind

I'll be Hubbell, you be Katie...no, wait, I want to be Katie...

And wouldn't you make a fabulous Katie! :xoxo: Stupid Hubbell.

[JazmenFlowers]

And wouldn't you make a fabulous Katie! :xoxo: Stupid Hubbell.
you know it! *snap snap snap in a Z formation* :lol:

[dissention]

I swear I could eat almost every meal for the rest of my life in the North End if I could. It's that good.:nod:

I heard a CRAZZZZZY story about Mooriah Carey at a deli in South Boston. :lol:

[DavidMn]

I heard a CRAZZZZZY story about Mooriah Carey at a deli in South Boston. :lol:Uh Oh. I'm afraid to ask. I'm guessing it had something to with what I'll call the Dont you know who I am syndrome?

[dissention]

Uh Oh. I'm afraid to ask. I'm guessing it had something to with what I'll call the Dont you know who I am syndrome?

She ordered a ham and cheese grinder and the girl working there asked for an autograph. Mooriah told her only if she had twenty bucks!

[DavidMn]

She ordered a ham and cheese grinder and the girl working there asked for an autograph. Mooriah told her only if she had twenty bucks!Of course she had to have that grinder to make sure that bootay of hers would be noticed on the Grammy's coming up.:lol: