Sen. Kerry calls for filibuster of Alito

[dissention]

Originally Posted by The Tower

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]

Originally Posted by amber

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.


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

[amber]

Originally Posted by The Tower

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. 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]

Originally Posted by cliffdweller

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]

Originally Posted by The Tower

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]

Originally Posted by The Tower

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]

Originally Posted by dissention

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]

Originally Posted by The Tower

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]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

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

I'm not your goddamned secretary.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Originally Posted by dissention

I'm not your goddamned secretary.

THATS administrative assistant biotch!

[dissention]

Originally Posted by amber

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]

Originally Posted by dissention

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

[dissention]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

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]

Originally Posted by dissention

I see the Randi Rhodes rhetoric is spreading. Oy.

For someone who relishes rhetoric with much gusto, I find this comment quite ironic.

Originally Posted by amber

If you read the link, you'll see that it's been done before, and so is possible.

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.

Originally Posted by amber

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.

Originally Posted by dissention

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?