Sen. Kerry calls for filibuster of Alito - Page 3

cliffdweller · #31 01-27-2006, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

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 · #32 01-27-2006, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

Even more proof of Democratic incompetence:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/27/po...gion.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 · #33 01-27-2006, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

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!

dissention · #34 01-27-2006, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Tower

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 · #35 01-27-2006, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cliffdweller

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?

Quote:

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 · #36 01-27-2006, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

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!

stargazer99 · #37 01-27-2006, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irishgrl

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 · #38 01-27-2006, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cliffdweller

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

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 · #39 01-27-2006, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

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

. 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 · #40 01-27-2006, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cliffdweller

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

.

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.

Quote:

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.

cliffdweller · #41 01-27-2006, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

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 · #42 01-27-2006, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cliffdweller

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 · #43 01-27-2006, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cliffdweller

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.