Text 13028, 118 rader
Skriven 2005-05-28 19:01:14 av John Hull (1:379/1.99)
  Kommentar till text 13023 av Gary Braswell (1:123/789.0)
Ärende: Washington "Mod-squad
=============================
28 May 05 18:47, Gary Braswell wrote to TIM RICHARDSON:

 GB> TIM RICHARDSON -> GARY BRASWELL wrote:

 TR>> On 05-27-05, GARY BRASWELL said to JOHN HULL:

 GB>>> John Hull -> THURSTON ACKERMAN wrote:

 JH>>> Moderates are wimps who can't take a stand and stick to it.  They 
 JH>>> have no convictions worth standing up for other than mediocrity.  
 JH>>> This latest example of "moderates" in action in the Senate did nothing 
 JH>>> but prolong the fight that is coming.  The Democrats can't afford to 
 JH>>> let conservative judges get appointed, so they will do whatever it
 JH>>> takes to prevent it.  But that fight is coming and no bunch of 
 JH>>> chickenshit moderates is going to do more than delay it.


 GB>>> Yeah, sure John. Moderates are just chickenshits, which is why 
 GB>>> the cowards stood up to their own parties and constituents in a move 
 GB>>> which likely damaged, if not ruined their power and influence in their 
 GB>>> own parties, and probably ruined any kind of political future.


 GB>>> Sounds like chickenshits to me.


 TR>> You want to know what "chickenshits" are?  Try looking at the dimwits 
 TR>> who deserted their party (make that read their constituents) and went 
 TR>> along with a group in the other party who are famous for 
 TR>> dis-enfranchising the U.S. Constitution, and thwarting the will of the 
 TR>> People.

 GB> If they went along with the other party, they would have supported 
 GB> the continued filibuster on all of the candidates Bush put up.

 GB> Obviously they did not.


 TR>> John McCain, and every turn-coat who joined him in his stabbing of 
 TR>> the Majority in the back, will face an electorate again.

 GB> I think I mentioned that above.


 TR>> As for the minority party who whined and cajoled till some of the
 TR>> republicans were weighed with guilt over winning a majority in the 
 TR>> Senate?


 TR>> The ink was hardly dry on the so-called `agreement', before Reid 
 TR>> had voilated it.

 GB> And much to the detriment of the Dems for doing it too.

Much to the detriment of the Dems?  Christ, you sound like this is the first
time they've ever done anything like this.  


 TR>> You need to read the Constitution, Braswell. Both House's of the
 TR>> Congress get to make their `own' rules by which they operate. Had Frist 
 TR>> and a group of republican Senators (who I might point out, are `in the 
 TR>> majority' in the Senate) decided to change the rules and allow a 
 TR>> straight up-or-down vote on each of Bush's nominee's, with a simple 
 TR>> majority deciding the issue, it would have been perfectly legal, and 
 TR>> within the letter of the Constitution.

 GB> I have read the constitution many times, Tim. I don't need to be 
 GB> taught it by you.

Then you know that there is nothing in there that permits the Democrats to
obstruct the process of advise and consent on presidential appointees for four
months, let alone four years.  

 GB> You assumed yet again I am for something I am not. I cannot go 
 GB> along with how the Democrats have filibustered for 4 years on 
 GB> appointees by abusing a privilege.

Then how in hell can you sit there and applaud McCain for caving in to Reid and
making an agreement that will only allow 3 out of 10 to get their
constitutional rights upheld?

 GB> But I don't think the privilege should be eliminated completely.

There is no plan to eliminate the filibuster by the Republicans and never has
been.  The ONLY plan is to restore the process of advise and consent, and as
I've pointed out, such a rules change is completely legal and has precedent.

 GB> There is a middle ground here, but the partisan power play is in 
 GB> effect and its come down to an all or nothing now for both parties.

The Democrats aren't interested in middle ground.  Why can't you see that?  Why
do you persist in supporting this charade that they do?

 TR>> Someone recently said something along the lines of;


 TR>> "Democrats arguing on the basis that the Senate can provide advise 
 TR>> and consent without voting, even at the committee level, is a rather 
 TR>> `strict' interpretation of the Constitution -- one that might be called
 TR>> `extreme'. How, one wonders, do these hyper-strict literalists find a 
 TR>> Constitutional right to abortion?"

 GB> You are surprised by hypocrisy in Washington?

Not at all.  But I DO want partisanship.  The Democrats have tried since the
days of FDR to control the Congress, the Judiciary, and the White House.  They
don't give a damn about anything but maintaining their power and have
demonstrated time and time again that all that matters is that they are on top.
 They will do and say anything to accomplish that.  And please don't try to
tell me that Republicans are just as bad, because we both know that's BS.  

John 

America:  First, Last, and Always!
Go to www.madgorilla.us for all your Domain Name Services at the lowest rates.

--- Msged/386 TE 05
 * Origin:  (1:379/1.99)