Didn't know I was "well off". I guess I can retire and live the life of luxury.davidmc said:This solution would also bring in Bush's constituency (the financially "well -off", so they couldn't "weasel" out of it like Cheney/DeLay) into the ranks of the military. In the immortal words of the right-wing radio, administration sycophant (O'Reilly): "What say you"
That's just one parameter. There are others. For instance, I hardly ever see a face in the crowd, of a republican "get-together", that isn't white. Then there's their hard-core voting base-the evangelicals. Then there's the homophobes, nationalists, fascists, ect... There are moderates but we don't hear from them, we only hear about Frist & DeLay.Colorado Ryder said:
Too bad we don't hear from any moderate Democrats. All we hear from is Kennedy, Pelosi, etc. Does this mean there are only blacks, hispanics, gays, athiests, communists, and, socialist at democrat get togethers? Nice stereotyping. Very original.davidmc said:
What about Senator Reid (D)Colorado Ryder said:
He's one of my heroes, not to Mention Charlie Rangel (D) Korean War vet. There are some Moderate Repub's whom I respect, like Sen. Spectre (R) et al. Conversely, moderates in the House are silenced/marginalized because of House Leader Hastert. Hastert is considering enacting the "nuclear option". Then we will be a true fascist/totalitarian state Maybe we should do away w/ the pomp & circumstance & do away w/ elections all together. We will acheive the same results as the Republican power grab's, as of late.
How about letting some judges come to a vote before the full senate? How about getting together and passing some legislation and not worry if the other side gets credit for it? How about putting the party politics aside and doing something that makes this a better country? How about some cooperation?davidmc said:What about Senator Reid (D)
Complain about the moderate Republicans are silenced, but you love all the far left Democrats. What the the word I'm looking for.........hypocrisy.davidmc said:She does look scary but I love her just the same
He is not a superstar…certainly you jest here…davidmc said:
I am so sick and tired of this “nuclear option” crapola. Read what you just typed here…You want to do away from elections…why? Cause you libs won’t be able to filibuster an appointee??? We elect or representatives to vote for us on these matters …no super duper majority should be required. Enough of the “nuclear option” rhetoric, it sounds like whining…really it does….So go ask Rangel to remove the splinter from your paw and give our eyes and ears a break….There are some Moderate Repub's whom I respect, like Sen. Spectre (R) et al. Conversely, moderates in the House are silenced/marginalized because of House Leader Hastert. Hastert is considering enacting the "nuclear option". Then we will be a true fascist/totalitarian state
Are you dismissing rangel out of hand or are you familiar w/ his pronouncements. He beleives the draft is a viable option especially w/ the rate bush is sending our servicemen to iraq. Recruitment is down if you havn't heard.zapper said:
It's worth noting that the Repub's used the fillibuster to thwart civil rights legislation. How noble of them. The nuclear option would cement the Evil Empires (Repub's) grip on our Theocracy errr...I mean Democracy. I keep getting those two mixed up due to the goings on of Bush & Co. They are pandering to their evangelical/bible belt base. Can't blame them, really; other than the fact that their goals are UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Tell me, did he vote for a draft?davidmc said:
No, there is nothing in the constitution that mentions a FILLIBUSTER concerning judicial nominees…Look, if you the enough libs there to vote against nominees we wouldn’t be having this conversation. The fact is the PEOPLE voted the republicans in and the PEOPLE will be represented by their votes…That is fair so get over it!As far as my mentioning "doing away w/ elections", that's referred to as satire/sarcasm. Whats wrong w/ the traditional 2/3 approval
Isn't that called tyranny of the minority? The very thing that Jefferson was afraid could happen.zapper said:
Nobody wants the draft but w/ our optional war going on we need troops. Bush has through his voluntary actions eviscerated the military. Recruitmant numbers are down. This is indisputable. How would you fill the rankszapper said:
You can't offer more financial inducements because there isn't the money due to bush's refusal to receive revenue into the treasury. He wants to run a over-reaching gov't & then foist the balance due on our country's grandchildren. Right now every individual in the country owe's @ $26k the moment they are born. This admin. spends money like a drunken sailor but the sailor pays in cash whereas bush uses the taxpayer's credit.
What's the source for the this 26K number? Is it a 'independent' source?davidmc said:Nobody wants the draft but w/ our optional war going on we need troops. Bush has through his voluntary actions eviscerated the military. Recruitmant numbers are down. This is indisputable. How would you fill the ranks
The estimated population of the United States is 295,851,507Colorado Ryder said:
Off the subject but the estimated number is exactly 295,851,507.davidmc said:The estimated population of the United States is 295,851,507
so each citizen's share of this debt is $26,319.91.
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
I'll concede this to you & Colorado Ryder BUT, as I'm not a constitutional scholar, as I can't outrighjt refute it. The dillemma is we've never had a Pres. quite like George W. wouldn't you agreezapper said:
Setting a "new low" as gov. of texas, in the # of executions. The judges he appoints will share his, it would seem by his actions in Texas, bloodthirst/indifference to life. How can he be on the one hand against abortion, albeit to appease his evangelical voting base(which really is unnecessary seeing as how he no longer has to worry about elections which he probably didn't ever have to do anyway w/ buddies from Diebold pledging their allegiance to his platform of faith based initiatives-having to go through religious channels to accept aid-abhorrent/unconstitutional. This is probably why he has put the gay marriage amendment/fiasco on the back burner so to speak. Where do you suppose these criminals that he was executing in Texas coming from I would suspect unwed mothers of which there will be many more if they overturn roe vs. wade. This will be good for the private prison industry (Wackenhut, among others). We have more people imprisoned than anyone, I think its 2 mill.+. So yes, lets overturn roe vs. wade so we can have more dysfunctional children. Who's going to raise them, the church's or, better yet, Bush's family. I think not. What were we talking about again Oh yes- give Bush/Hastert "carte blanche" to appoint "hang em' high", 10 commandments/crosses in the courtroom judges Remember this is the guy who gave us J. Ashcroft. You may be correct on "precedence" but the Dem's are right on "practicality'
So the basis of your argument is.....lets kill babies so we won't have to execute them later. That really well thought out.davidmc said:I'll concede this to you & Colorado Ryder BUT, as I'm not a constitutional scholar, as I can't outrighjt refute it. The dillemma is we've never had a Pres. quite like George W. wouldn't you agree
Read my post again. These babies born to indigent/high-school-dropout/single/ &/or disfunctional families are the next people to end up on death row. It may not bother George & his Evangelical base but it bother's me, whether or not anyone else gives a darn. Executions are not free either. I read an in depth study that indicated an appeal cost's > $1 mill. per Who pays for thatColorado Ryder said:
Where do the taxes come from. Why have so many states been running a budget deficit? I submit that many of these children born into unhealthy/indigent/single mother's household's end up on death row. It's a never ending cycle because we know where the Evangelicals stand on birth control don't we.
