Saturday, January 14, 2006

Teddy Kennedy Swallows a Camel. And Did Anybody Know?

I spent a good deal of last week listening to or watching the Alito confirmation hearings. Between NPR, and C-SPAN I think I got most of it. Some, including Joe Biden, Dem. Senator from Delaware, suggest the process “stinks”. I think Senator Biden’s real concern is how these proceedings have stirred up the stink rising from the Democrat Party.

Jesus taught us how to judge Kennedy and company’s behavior in the Supreme Court conformation proceedings.

St. Matthew 23:23-24:

23) Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, “hypocrites! For ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cumin, and have omitted the weightier maters of the law; judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

24) Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

The ugly mug of the Democrat Party hangs out to full view, its great mouth open wide. More and more Teddy Kennedy has become identified as the face of the Democrats. Not that he has done anything of value for the country, but because, in the bleeding jaw that is the Democrat Party, the diseased gums have receded around Kennedy, as though he were an infected tooth; now he hangs out like a rotting fang.

Now that great stinking maw, with snaggeled tooth, opens to choke on a gnat and swallows the camel.

The Democrat attack on Alito can be divided into three parts: politics, slander, and lies.

Politics:

The Democrats are afraid that as a Justice of the Supreme Court, Alito will stop the misapplication of the Roe - v – Wade decision as a blank check to kill the unborn for convenience sake. They cannot allow this abominable misapplication of the Constitution to come before reasonable minds. Therefore they continue to insist on the litmus test of a pro-abortion stance for any Supreme Court nominee. The witnesses who attacked Alito after his personal inquisition, flatly claimed that he would stop the “legalized” killings of the unborn if he is allowed on the court. That fact that the majority of Americans and the laws of nature and nature’s God demand an end to abortion on demand do not affect their decisions. These democrats are bound to the special interest groups who are invested in abortion, and choke.

Slanders:

Teddy Kennedy claimed that decades ago Judge Alito cited membership in a Princeton conservative alumni group on one of his job applications for a job in a conservative administration. When asked about why he would join such a group Alito explained that as a member of ROTC, he had been offended by Princeton’s attitude toward the military, and as this group was active in supporting the ROTC he had supported it. Kennedy then went on to read from editorial comments in copies of the organization’s publication which Alito had never read, and which the Concerned Alumni of Princeton openly disavowed in the magazine that contained them. The press is full of stupid claims and bigoted assertions, but does not mean that those who subscribe to the papers or the cable networks are stupid bigots. It is amazing that in the millions of words written by Judge Alito, and the thousands of his own pronouncements they could not find a single bigoted remark. All Kennedy’s army of bush beaters could scare up was this “guilt by association” accusation. It was a choked up blast of really bad breath.

Kennedy’s scraping fang next locked on a recusal (sp) issue. Judge Alito heard a single case out of over 4,000 in which a company which he had some investment moneys in was involved. That once the situation came to Alito’s attention he did recuse (sp) himself, and had the case retried, that Judge Alito had nothing to gain from the case no matter what the ruling, that he admitted up front that he made a mistake, and thus called for the retrial, meant nothing to the snaggeled tooth. When the case was retried the new court found in the exact same way that Alito had ruled! All Kennedy wanted to do was find some slander to gnaw on. Specter, Biden, Schumer, Durban, and the rest chewed along in unison spattering the proceedings with the stinking droll.

That’s it – in all the writings and actions of a life time, in all the business and proceedings of years of being a scholar, lawyer, and fifteen years of Alito’s judgeship, Kennedy and company could only cough up these two little gnats. And now they are vomiting all over the confirmation process until it stinks so badly that even Joe Biden wishes it would just go away.

Lies:

Judge Alito has heard over 4,000 cases, has written opinions on 350 appeals. The democrats have chewed this mountain of material like a ruminating cow, and from it culled out a few cases which can be twistingly presented to show a bias. Of course when a judge makes a judgment he is choosing one side over another. That the facts of the case are never discussed by the fang and the little molars is telling. The much touted strip search of the ten year old girl is most telling. Judge Alito’s position, was that a warrant to search “every one” in a known drug dealer’s house, a drug dealer that was known to hide his stash on the person of anyone, could be reasonably interpreted by a police officer to include a ten year old girl. The search, which was not intrusive, was conducted by a female police officer, in the presence of the girl’s mother, and the girl was never striped. None of these facts, which reduce this “Gestapo” like atrocity to a gnat, are ever presented by the foul mouth. All it can do is spew out rotten lies.

The Democrats bring in all kinds of “witnesses” to claim that they have read Alito’s record and can divine that he is a bigot, a monarchist, and how he will rule from the Supreme Court bench. That he will destroy the right to “one man one vote” and he will drag the country back to “Jim Crow” and segregation and will support racial profiling. They have university professors come in and testify that because of this theory or that, they can tell that Judge Alito’s support of law enforcement in certain cases he will allow the Executive to enslave the Legislative and Judicial branches, destroy the Constitution, and reduce American to a monarchy. They find a passing reference that Judge Alito made to the “Unitary Executive”, a reference which the Judge explained that he simply meant that the President was in charge of the executive branch. The tooth and company then belched out their theories of what he meant. They called Judge Alito a liar and explained that Judge Alito really wanted to set up a monarchy. The lie stinks.

The stench of bad breath has caused the decay of what is chewed and the bile churned up. The great classical scholar, Robert Graves, points out that the existence of corrupt men of power is a testimony to mankind’s need for its sense of smell. The rotting, stinking mouth that is the Democrat Party, straining at gnats, now opens to swallow the camels. We can all smell the stench. Here are some Camels relating to Supreme Court interests that are being sucked in by the monstrous maw.

Camel – The murder of One Million unborn Americans every year.

Camel – The exploitation of American Minorities by special interest groups bent on keeping them down. Many special interest groups require a climate of racism and anger to exist. These groups maintain their sway by encouraging more and more Americans into positions of dependency on government programs crafted to maintain the political power of the interest groups; groups that can only exist in an atmosphere of hate and fear.

Camel – The holding hostage of America’s resources by special interest environmental groups who use pseudo science and fear to prevent the use of vital resources, and lies to justify their existence and gin up money to buy politicians then used to grant the special interests grater power.

Camel – The revelation of America’s National Defense secrets by those entrusted to keep those secrets. This revealed information makes preventing the mass murder of Americans more difficult. It is interesting to note that terror cells suspects are now buying hundreds of disposable cell phones, their intent to duck the surveillance of the NSA which has kept us safe these past four plus years. At the same time Kennedy uses the word whistle blower to describe traitors who told our war time secrets to our enemies, he is calling for indictments for a non-crime concerning a non-covert CIA employ.

Camel – It was interesting to hear the tooth of the same party that sent in federal marshals to drag a little Cuban boy back to Castro and slaughter the folks at Waco, tear into Alito’s ruling to allow a judge rather than a jury to hear a case of federal marshals being sued for evicting admittedly dangerous people from their farm without hurting anyone.

Camel – While questioning if a demonstrated impartial judge leans too far “right” in his politics, Democrats swallow the camel of interpretation of the Constitution by the application of foreign law.

Camel – An activist judge in Vermont who releases a confessed rapist because he does not “believe in punishment anymore, and the prison system does not have adequate rehabilitation programs.”

Camel – Child services workers who can not enter the home of suspected child abusers without a warrant and do not attempt to go to the trouble to get one; resulting in a seven year old child being beaten to death by the abusive parents.

Camel – While claiming that there is nothing more constitutionally sacred than the separation of powers and the rights and responsibilities of the separate but equal branches of American government, the Democrats use an unconstitutional debate tradition (the filibuster) to prevent voting on judges and other important issues.

Jesus told us how to recognize “hypocrites who have omitted the weightier matters of the law”; they strain at the gnats, and swallow the camels. We can all tell the camel eaters by the stink. I thank Jesus for the advice and God for our sense of smell.

50 comments:

Reach Upward said...

Lysis, the graphic picture you paint with words keeps the reading interesting. One point: when you said that we can all smell the stench, I'm not sure that is correct. Does one skunk smell malodorous to another? It would seem that some are perfectly comfortable with the examples you brought up.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Lysis said...

One’s sense of smell, like one’s “sense” of reason, can either be dulled or sharpened by long exposure to rottenness. As for the skunks, all they are is big stinky weasels who use stench as a weapon.

Dan Simpson said...

Skunks are actually kind of small for the weasel family.

Anonymous said...

Lysites:
1. Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution GIVES EACH HOUSE OF CONGRESS AUTHORITY to set its own rules, and the Senate has always required more than a simple majority to cut off debate, in keeping with its deliberative role. On May 14, 2003, 58 law professors signed a letter to Sens. Frist and Daschle confirming the constitutionality of the Senate's use of the filibuster with respect to both legislation and judicial nominations. Moreover, in 1994 Hatch said the filibuster "is one of the few tools the minority has to protect itself and those the minority represents."

Lysis Posted:
"Democrats use an unconstitutional debate tradition (the filibuster) to prevent voting on judges and other important issues."

The historical record is clear that BOTH parties have conducted filibusters against judicial nominees over the decades. (Indeed, both Sen. Hatch and C. Boyden Gray have previously acknowledged the RIGHT of senators to conduct filibusters against judicial nominees)

Until recent days, even Sen. Hatch had acknowledged that there HAD been a filibuster against the Supreme Court nomination of Abe Fortas. But now, remarkably,in *pharisaic emulation*, he and his allies are trying to create a NEW HISTORICAL RECORD (creating revisionist history is Lysis' forte too)out of whole cloth so they can assert, wrongly, that no judges have been blocked by filibusters. Unfortunately for them, the facts are well documented.

The record is quite clear, from both senate records and contemporary press accounts; the nomination of Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice was withdrawn following a successful filibuster by a mostly republican minority of the Senate. The revisionist history being employed so that Senate Republicans can call current filibusters "unprecedented" and "unconstitutional" reflects disdain for the TRUTH and disrespect for the Senate and its history -- Jesus is MOST ashamed of hypocrisy and lying -- Yes, Jesus, throw those money changers out of the Temple!!!!

The "swiftboating" of Kennedy and Murtha and LV and Clinton and any Anons and any and all Democrats/liberals, is what Lysis enjoys most in a debate here at the Agora (it's ALWAYS included and increasingly his "fallback" position) -- if Allito's wife cried during investigative hearings, we should all weep at Lysis' continuous smear and besmirch tactics.

Lysis:
If "filibustering" is going on at the Agora (this is simply absurd)when can the Agorites vote for cloture? -- when DO we vote, anyway?

or

Once again, as Lysis Dumpty said to his critics, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."!!!!

Lysis said...

Anonymous, first of all, it pleases me that of all the “gobbled camels” the one on the filibuster is the only one you choked on. You are really ready to argue that the rules of the Senate can override the President’s and the majority’s will on judges? I thought you were the one arguing that, because they had a majority in the House and Senate, the Republicans could do anything they wanted and are therefore responsible for everything bad in America. Nice to see you come to understand the truth on the power of the minority after all. Also, as a defender of the rules of the Senate, you will no doubt delight when the Dem’s try to filibuster this judicial appointment and the majority, on a 51% simple majority, change the rules of the Senate to prevent judicial filibuster. I will agree with you that the Senate is within their right to filibuster, as are you. I guess they would also be within their constitutional rights to make a rule that black men or women could not be seated in the senate; it doesn’t make it right. I will continue to argue that holding up the business of the nation for partisan reasons is Anti Constitutional, if not unconstitutional.

Anonymous said...

One at a time Lysis, One at a time -- good wine, a good cigar, and GOOD argumentation take some time to molder. Your, "spit and spread" tactics are frantic and disassociated -- Soooo, one at a time.

First, I think you've become lost in your own metaphors, or gobbled by "gobbled camels" -- I wont speak to that.

Next, Your question about my willingness to argue . . . "whether the rules of the Senate CAN override the President's and the majority's will on judges."

Well, obviously it CAN if the Constitution "says so".
OUGHT it too? I will defer to whatever "values" and "justice" Constitutional designers felt were upheld when the Senate was invested the right to make its own "filibuster" rules -- I suppose it had something to do with internal and external checks and balances and precedents, not Presidents.

As for "majority will" the Electoral College (as you well know) can pre-empt THAT "will" based on tradition and law. Was Lysis a strong advocate of "majority will" at the genesis of Bush I? The answer to that question clearly revealsthe depths of the hypocrisy.

Next,I do not know ANYONE at ANYTIME in the Agora who has argued that "Republicans could do anything they wanted" and are therefore "responsible for everything bad in America" because of their majorities in the house and Senate. As a courtesy, please do a "fairer" job of rerepresenting ARGUED positions.

My understanding the "TRUTH of the power of the minority" is a non-sequiter and absurd statement -- I never made, nor seemed to make, such a claim.

Next. I think that it would be a mistake to filibuster the Alito nomination -- "sometimes a fighter can make his "best punch" when he steps back." -Million Dollar Baby

Thank You for agreeing that Senate Dems have a right to filibuster, but it is not true that I also have this right -- I am not an elected member of a legislative body. Please, consider the definition of "filibuster".

Next:
The argument of "holding up the business of the Nation for partisan reasons" being "Anti" if not "Un" Constitutional, is *begging the question* and is ITSELF thinly disguised partisanship.

The "business of the nation" is for the Senate to discuss/debate/represent/vote as it SEES FIT (of couurse, constitutionally). It has no Moral OR Constitutional obligation to expedite Bush Supreme Court appointees!!!!

Qustion:
The Senate tradition of filibustering has been around since the 1850's. If, as Lysis noted, it would only take 51% to change the rules, why would such an "unjust" and partisan rule still exist? Everyone but Lysis knows the answer to that question!!!!(he knows but wont admit).

Have some sympathy for Mr. Smith, Lysis. His trip to Washington was filled with *Boy Scout* dreams and ambitions that proved ONLY a filibuster could grab the moral conscience of those partisan indoctrinated philistines!!!!

Lysis said...

I quote Anonymous from the previous thread. His memory of his own words seems as faulty as his memory of history, and his understanding of the constitution.

“. . . misdirection and outright fiction by the host of the Agora have hit levels not seen since Bush entered the Whitehouse. What’s this, Lysis claming the Republicans do not control the three branches of the federal government? Surely this must be more information provided by Ahmed Chalabi. . . . Just in case anyone does believe Lysis’ disinformation they should know that there is an alternate place - - often called reality by those who live there - - where Republican control 55 Senate seats, Democrats 44, and one bonehead Independent from Vermont who always votes with the Republicans . . . On the House side there are 232 Republicans, 201 Democrats, one more bonehead independent and one acancy. . . President George Bush, who is a Republican, is the leader of his party and until recently governed it with an iron fist. . . Saying the Republican, let alone conservatives, do not control Congress is foaming at the mouth madness! . . .

As for Abe Fortas; the Fortas filibuster was inappropriate as well. The “you did it so I can too” excuse is only valid for those who did it. Fortas was filibuster by both Democrats and Republicans and only got 43 votes for closure. However, using the filibuster to block the vote on President’s appointment is creating a super majority requirement that is not in the constitution. The percentage of votes it takes to confirm is spelled out in the constitution, and it is not 60%! Again, the Constitution calls for up and down votes by simple majority on Presidential appointments. The Senate rules sidestep the Constitution.

Again, Anonymous – I hope you don’t complain when the Senate Rules are changed to match the Constitution on Presidential appointments. I think I’ll support that too, but when they vote to kick out women, I’ll be calling out, “anit-constitutional”, again. What will Anonymous be doing? Forgetting his positions for sure!

Anonymous said...

Even though I did not post the quoted portion of your rebuttal, I'm confused about Lysis' objections -- the numbers from the Senate and the House DO point at Republican majority control and everyone knows which party Bush belongs to. The portion of post you quote, however, lacks the important generalization you CLAIM was made; ie, that therefore . . . "Republicans could do anything they wanted and were responsible for everything bad in America."

I doubt that the Anon who posted the simple arithmetic manifesting Senate and House "majority" and "control" would generalize in the way you CLAIM -- I find THAT kind of generalization only in your OWN postings.
Also, THAT Anon, I believe, was simply reacting to the Lysis' over-generalizations of the past. (sorry, if I happen to mis-state/represent Anons intentions)
If Lysis had been attentive to detail, he would have known THAT Anon was not THIS Anon!!!!

Response to "Fortas" later.

Lysis said...

Here are some more anonymous ramblings. Then, they showed ignorance; now, as evidence, they show the neo-lib trick of shifting one’s position when one’s arguments collapse.

“Name the tax-cut Bush wanted that he didn’t get. Name the budget he wanted that he didn’t get. Name a “Medicare plan” he wanted that he didn’t get. Name a public school program he wanted eh didn’t get. Name a security act he wanted he didn’t get. . . [The rant goes on and on.] . . . And if he got anything different why didn‘t he veto it?! You cannot filibuster a veto no matter what you brainwash your students with . . . Bush has virtually EVERYTHING he has called for. . . I can’t believe Liesis thinks Republicans aren’t the party in control or that Bush has not pushed through almost his entire agenda. He even pushed through his foreign agenda without going to Congress by taking us out of international treaties like Kyoto and going right past Congress to spy on us. . . . Why do you pretend that the Republicans are not in control of Congress or that Bush isn’t getting the legislation passed that he wants? Don’t be such a rock-headed fool.”

I could go on, but the point is made. The Anonymous ploy is to duck, dodge, and deceive.

Anonymous said...

I am happy to be quoted again that my words should continue to confound and befuddle Liesis and be useful to those with a true reason. Keep it up Anonymous! The actual history of the fillebuster and Senate rules are reassuring in the face of Liesis' tall-tales.

Silver Lining said...

Sorry to get off topic in order to go back to the original topic, but what can I say, I'm slow.

To the first Anonymous' post, indeed, in my opinion, Orrin Hatch is a political opportunist. He is in good company in the senate though and even on the issue of judicial filibuster. There are many quotes to pull from, but I didn't have the time to go through that many. There are a few of interest posted below.

Senator Edward Kennedy

Then: "We owe it to Americans across the country to give these nominees a vote. If our Republican colleagues don't like them, vote against them. But give them a vote." – Senator Edward Kennedy, Congressional Record, 3 February 1998

Now: "The Senate Democrats are the only line of defense against George Bush's effort to pack our federal courts with reactionary right-wing judges who will roll back the fundamental constitutional rights that Americans in states across the country value the most in our free society. Now, our very ability to block the confirmation of these ideological judges is in jeopardy. Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has arrogantly threatened repeatedly to re-write the long-standing Senate rules and eliminate the filibuster rule, the basic procedure to prevent a narrow Senate majority from running roughshod over the rights of the Senate minority." – Senator Kennedy, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee newsletter, March 2005

Senator Charles Schumer

Then: "The basic issue of holding up judgeships is the issue before us, not the qualifications of judges, which we can always debate. The problem is it takes so long for us to debate those qualifications. It is an example of Government not fulfilling its constitutional mandate because the President nominates, and we are charged with voting on the nominees. … I also plead with my colleagues to move judges with alacrity – vote them up or down. But this delay makes a mockery of the Constitution, makes a mockery of the fact that we are here working, and makes a mockery of the lives of very sincere people who have put themselves forward to be judges and then they hang out there in limbo." – Senator Schumer, Congressional Record, 7 March 2000

Now: "Whatever party is in charge always wants to control the whole thing, but that's not what America is all about, that’s not how the Founding Fathers set it up. The Democrats were wrong — I was not there when they wanted to get rid of the filibuster when they were in charge, and the Republicans are equally wrong. We believe in checks and balances; if you win 51 percent or 52 percent or 53 percent, that doesn't mean you run the whole show." – Interview, Fox and Friends, 25 April 2005

So, Hatch, Kennedy, Schumer and others have changed their minds in the last 10 years? They are all political opportunists? Maybe both? My point is that Hatch's change is position doesn't indicate the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the judicial filibuster nor do the changing opinions of Kennedy and Schumer. (Note: Lysis swiftboating Kennedy? I don't think so)

As far as Article I Section V is concerned, EACH HOUSE OF CONGRESS DOES HAVE AUTHORITY TO SET ITS OWN RULES, and regarding the rules associated with filibuster, the Senate has the power to set, and yes, in many cases, change those rules. Robert Byrd and many others proposed something similar to the so called "nuclear option" only their proposal would have been for all filibusters and not just judicial filibusters. It was proposed in the nineties if memory serves. It failed obviously as we still require 60 votes to end a filibuster. This too has been changed by Robert Byrd who has proposed legitimate changes to Senate rules such as these on multiple occassions.

Tyranny both of the majority and minority were concerns of the Founders and concerns they tried to adapt for as much as possible in forming our government. That being said, the constitutional power of a majority of Senators to strengthen, improve, and reform Senate rules and procedures is also expressly stated in the Constitution, and was unanimously endorsed by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Ballin.

In Ballin, the Court unanimously held that unless the Constitution expressly provides for a supermajority vote, the constitutional rule is majority vote. For example, the Constitution clearly states that each house of Congress “may determine the Rules of its Proceedings” (Article I, Section 5).

The 60 votes to end a filibuster is a rule set for itself by the Senate and one that can be changed constitutionally by the senate. If we agree or disagree with that, it is our right and our duty to make our opinions known as loudly as possible to our senators as they are supposed to represent us in their work. Sigh, I am very underrepresented, but that is another topic entirely.

Throughout our nation’s more than history, the constitutional precedent and Senate tradition for confirming judges has been majority rule. If the Senate wants to restore that tradition, then they can seek to do so.

All of this is probably moot at this point though as one Democrat (not on the judicial committee to my knowledge) has come out in favor of Alito. Furthermore, and ironically, I find Senator Feinstein one of the most honest in this proceding. She said she will not vote for Alito as she doesn't agree with his judicial philosophy. However, she does not agree with filibustering the nomination.

Anonymous said...

Well, considering that Bush has boasted about Vetoing NOTHING and that the Republican LEADERSHIP MAJORITY in the House and Senate have completely set the legislative agenda; it is no stretch to generalize that "Bush has virtually everything that he has called for."

Now, Anon preceded his generalization with specifics (read them for yourself) and a challenge to Lysis. (which was ignored) and truly Anon's "everything" WAS qualified with "virtually"; so I don't think Anon meant that Bush could NOW spend the night with the Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders "if he called for it." . . . But, that seems to be how Lysis wants to mis-characterize the argument. (I wonder why?)

However, Lysis responded with an obviously convoluted and inaccurate (dishonest?)mischaracterization of Anons position so that he could play the "neo-lib waffle" card when it was denied. (This is a trick of rhetoric that I ascribe to Lysis himself and not necessarily to all neo-cons)


Lysis Posted the following comment/argument:
"I thought you were the one arguing that, because they had a majority in the House and Senate, the Republicans could do ANYTHING they wanted and are therefore responsible for EVERYTHING BAD in America." (my caps)

The EVERYTHING BAD generalization is totally Lysis' own concoction and again a convoluted mischaracterization of Anons' argument. (If Lysis could have referenced a DIRECT QUOTE he would have done so before now)

Yes, DUCK, DODGE, and DECEIVE DO DIRECT DISILLUSIONED DUPLICITY at DELUDED Lysis!!!!

Bryan Hickman said...

Ignoring Anonymous' word-mincing, I'll add to Silver Lining's comments.

While neither party has clean hands with regard to the politicization of Judicial nominees, there are stark differences between the two parties on this issue and, surprise, the Democrats have been far worse.

Foremost, if you look at SC nominees from Democratic administrations, they have, even when they are very controversial, garnered widespread support. This is not question of their caliber (I don't think anyone would argue that Ruth Ginsberg was more qualified or less extremist than John Roberts) but from the fact the Republicans practice more deference toward the President in the selection of nominees.

In the past two decades, we've seen the controversey surrounding the nominations of Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts (albeit to a far lesser extent) and now Sam Alito. All of these nominees have garnered more politically-charged controversey and false rhetorical attacks than ANY Democratic nominee. Why? Because Democrats have a fundamentally different viewpoint toward SC nominees from Republicans.

With regard to the judicial filibuster, while it has been practiced to some extent in the past (in isolated cases), the recent practice of the Senate minority systematically blocking the President's nominations, keeping specific judges on certain courts, is COMPLETELY unprecedented.

Democrats always point to the Fortas nomination as their precedent (and anonymous has done so here). However, in that case, the nomination was blocked by 23 Reps and 19 Dems when the Senate leadership tried to force the nomination through after only 8 hours of debate and it was never clear that the nomination had the support of the Senate majority.

This one case, for Democrats, justifies the recent practice of blocking nearly one-third of the President's appellate court nominees. That's hardly logical and, at best, its laughably misleading.

As someone who works for Senator Hatch, I'd like anyone to produce any quotes from him in which he has supported the judicial filibuster...I don't think they exist. Certainly, when he was chairman of the judiciary committee, he used certain committee rules to his advantage and, in the end, blocked several of the President Clinton's judges. However, Clinton ended up appointing the 2nd highest number of judges in history, including 95% percent of his appellate court nominees. In addition, Hatch's practice under Clinton more or less mirorred Biden's under Reagan.

Surely, Democrats can't claim to justifiy systematic MINORITY obstruction of judicial nominations through by pointing actions taken by the Senate MAJORITY under a completely different context. That, of course, would be stupid.

My point: While both parties can be criticized on this issue, the Republicans have far cleaner hands.

Anonymous said...

Silverlining:
If Lysis' criticism of Kennedy had been about "opportunism in the Senate" I would not have used the term "swiftboating".

But, the controlling metaphor of Lysis posting was crafted to be visceral and incendiary -- very different from YOUR more reasoned comments.

One other issue -- a MAJORITY will STILL confirm Alito to the Supreme Court -- sixty is for cloture IF
the nomination is filibustered.

To my knowledge, the Senate has ALWAYS confirmed Supreme Court judges by majority vote. Filibustering the process has been an option since 1850.

However, I know that Lysis argues Bush "opportunism", especially in U.S. Foreign policy, as a necessay and lauditory "ends justify the means" -- I am groing increasingly suspect that this is the TRUTH he constantly alludes to!!!!

Silver Lining said...

Bryan,

Hatch has not supported a Senate wide filibuster for judicial nominees that I know of. He has, as you state, used committee rules to his advantage and stopped nominees in committee. Some have called it a filibuster, but by definition it is something a bit different.

Anonymous,

I know the 60 votes are for cloture, and that has been changed over the years. That is something the Dems have tried to change.

Bryan, I agree with you about the dirtier hands.

Anonymous said...

"The editorial page of the New York Times weighed in on Sept 27, on the Fortas filibuster . It observed that 'behind the developing (Fortas) filibuster are strong undertones of politics, spitefulness and racism . . . The REAL leaaders of the filibuster are those old guard Southerners, Senator Eastland of Mississippi and Senatory Thurmond of South Carolina. The SOUTHERN (MINORITY) BIGOTS must be pleased indeed that the more respected Senators are serving as their cats'-paw in the case against Mr. Fortas."

Well, so much for the "clean hands" of Republican filibusters.

Though, it is not remarkable that an O.R. "hired hand" should find anything wrong with a little "opportunistic bigotry" when it will further a filibuster, fail a nomination and put a smile on the bosses face.

Please!!!!
The old, "My pigs cleaner and purty'er than your pig argument has credibility, I guess, 'mongst the pigs.

Lysis said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Lysis said...

Silver Lining and Bryan, thanks for restoring some civility to our discussion. I am afraid there is not much I could say to please the Anonymy. Even more than the tone, I am grateful for the facts you provide.

As for the disinformation on Abe Fortas that Anonymous continues to spin. If Anonymous would have checked his facts, no doubt a novel idea for him, he would know that Eastland was a Democrat, as was Thurmond until 1964.

I find it laughable that Anonymous continues to us Swift Boating as a pejorative. The Swift Boat Vets were true heroes who revealed the truth about John Kerry, in spite of the spin and screaming of the Dems.

I would have thought mathematical definitions within even Anonymous’ grasp. Evidently not; a simple majority out of 100 is 51, not 60, Go figure!!!

I am still gratified that in the entire post relating to Kennedy’s “camel gulping” above, the Anonymy can find nothing to challenge but the indictment or their filibustering.

Bryan, I would suggest that the Democrats’ position on everything from the rights of the unborn to their desire to impose political correctness by mandate, are so out-of-step with logic and common sense that activist judges are their only remaining hope. As every position fill by Bush diminishes their last remaining power base, outside of Hollywood, they are willing to compromise everything, including the Constitution, to prevent his progress. It is interesting that the Democrats are even willing to abandon Democracy to maintain their last vestige of influence.

Rumpole said...

Anonymy,

USA Today’s quote from Hilary’s speech on Monday - USA TODAY – Jan.16, 2006:

“The House “has been run like a Plantation, and you KNOW what I’m talking about.”

CNN’s analysis from Ray Nagin’s speech on Monday - CNN – Jan. 18, 2006:

“On Monday, Nagin said God wanted New Orleans to be predominantly black and said he didn't care what the predominantly white Uptown section of the city had to say about it.”

Teddy Kennedy on Chappaquiddick - ". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ."

Your quote:

“Even though I did not post the quoted portion of your rebuttal, I’m confused about Lysis’ objections”

If only it were true! What a great way to go! No need to worry about outrage or ramifications! Play to your audience. Say whatever you like then hide under the protective cloak of a liberal media! POST WHATEVER YOU LIKE AT THE AGORA THEN HIDE UNDER THE CLOAK OF ANONYMITY!

I miss the days when a man like Verus at least had the courage to label his posts. To his credit, he wasn’t afraid to be challenged on his positions. I don’t know him or have any idea who he is. But I did know when he was telling the truth, and I knew where he stood on the issues. IT DIDN'T OCCUR TO HIM THAT HE COULD MAKE A BAD ARGUEMENT, THEN DEFER TO SOME OTHER NEBULOUS MEMBER OF THE ANONYMY!

Those are qualities I respect! I certainly can’t say that for the current Anonymy!

It is an “attention to detail” that is sadly lacking!

Bryan Hickman,

I enjoyed your post. I would agree that the question of the “caliber” is not the issue. Rather, as Silver Lining pointed out with Feinstein, it is one of a “judicial philosophy”, or a litmus test, if you will.

In his book “Bias”, Bernard Goldberg explains that a true liberal does not see his own bias BECAUSE he believes himself to be arguing from the position of truth. In essence anything not from that position is simply wrong.

The fallacy of such a position is never clearer then when comparing Ginsberg and Roberts.

Does using foreign law to determine Constitutional issues denote qualified?

Does interpreting the Constitution as an “originalist” denote extremism?

It appears to me that this it the “judicial philosophy” Feinstein advocates.

Lysis said...

Rumpole, your comment on the “?who?” of the Anonymous is particularly illuminating. One Anonymous chides me for not being able to tell his filibuster from that of another Anonymous. How can I discern when all the arguments come from the same stilted sources and logic is equally lacking in all cases? You explained exactly the “why” of the Anonymy’s need to hide in anonymity.

Anonymous said...

Lysites:
Go figure?
I did figure! -- the Fortas nomination was in 1968 when both(Thurmond and Eastland) were Republicans -- Lysis tells us that both Thurmond and Eastland had become REPUBLICANS in 1964 -- but he, never-the-less accedes that BOTH were racist/bigoted "pigs".(thanks for acceding to the important issue anyway)

Take that argument back to Limbaugh.com Lysis, the chronology needs work.

Rumpole:
What about all those Republican "clean hands" looking for a "BIG" washing from Abramoff??
Or are you still trying to make something sinister from Hillary's obscurantist remark about the "Plantation".

If she was talking about all the Republicans "on the take" (please say it aint so, Joe)I can figure out who the "Po' field workers are"!!!!
I will leave you to "go figure".

Lysis said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Lysis said...

Although James Eastland was Chairman of the Judicial Committee for 22 years, he was NEVER a Republican. As for Democrats being raciest bigots, by the record of Eastland and the words of Hillary Clinton, they can be known.

As for Abramoff dirty money, seems Harry Ried was on the take to the tune of $60,000. That’s ten times the amount returned by the Bush campaign. By the way, Ried intends to keep his dirty money. Go figure!!!

Anonymous said...

In 1964 when LBJ signed his important Civil Rights Legislation, Many bigoted 'Old South' Democratic Southern Racists turned to the Republican Party as the new "promised land" (so racism continues to this day) The Fortas filibuster was a way for an old South Democratic/ Nouveau Republican RACIST minority to punish the President and his new anti-racist legislation.

Bush' fundraising profiling spans the world's of finance , real estate, industry and politics. THE COMMON DENOMINATOR: EACH IS WEALTHY AND HAS ACCESS TO OTHER'S FORTUNES -- WITH FEW EXCEPTIONS THEY ARE WHITE MALE AND OVER 50. (Nouveau Republican sexist/racists)

Abramoff was one of Bush's "PIONEER" fundraisers -- those who had raised OVER $100,000 and received SPECIAL FAVORS from the Bush administration!!!!

(Bush returned "some" money? -- can he return the FAVORS and SPECIAL ACCESS???? (millions of dollars for special access and FAVORS is a paltry investment with a BIG payoff)

Republican governors are returning $500,000.

The Lysites will not stop using the "My pig is purty'er than your pig" rationalization even when their pig is proven such a unconscionable venal HOG!!!!

Follow the money!

Lysis said...

Who’s claiming one pig is cleaner than another. Bush gave back the dirty money, Ried didn’t that’s my only point. As for raciest Democrats = Republicans, argument, it’s a lie, it is Relativism revealed!

Anonymous said...

Rumpole:
My postings are attributed as much as yours -- you use a fictional moniker I use a "stylistic" moniker -- I really don't know anything about you, (nor care to) nor you me (I hope).
You don't trust me -- I don't trust you -- that suits me fine!

I will pass your comments on to LV -- he will be amused.

LV IS a courageous person, but not a stupid one -- the mindless PERSONAL attacks are why he left!!!!

Anonymous said...

Lysis:
Did Bush give back the special access and favors? Money makes small recompense when special access to the president is worth
BILLIONS -- you know that!!!!

Rumpole said...

Anonymy,

“What about all those Republican ‘clean hands’ looking for a big washing from Abramoff?”

This is from KULR TV – Billings, January 5, 2006. I know it is obscure, but it says it better than I could.

“. . . it's important to note that simply receiving a donation does not necessarily mean a legislator did anything illegal or unethical . . .”

That goes for members of both parties. It includes Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barbra Mikulski, Dick Durbin (among other democrats and republicans, according to the AP), and even Dingy Harry.

Can you now do some “figuring”?

Do you want to make Washington better? Make all donations illegal. Of course that will never happen. In the meantime let’s go after ANYONE, INDEPENDENT OF PARTY, that has accepted a bribe. Do these donations constitute a bribe? At this point, INDEPENDENT OF PARTY, NO! If investigations lead to proof of guilt, punish by the law INDEPENDENT OF PARTY.

I enjoyed that, but can I have some more fun now? First we had Teddy “Chappaquiddick” Kennedy leading the “ethics” questioning of Sam Alito! Now we have Dingy Harry Reid as the poster boy leading the charge on contributions from Abramoff? The same Dingy Harry that is connected to over $60,000 in donations from the same Abramoff? The same Dingy Harry that refuses to give that money back?

Now there’s a MAROON!

Oh, and by the way, he actually apologized for his tirade yesterday!

He is still a MAROON!

As to Hilary’s comment, Trent Lott was castigated for his comment about Strom Thurmond. Hillary makes just as an inflammatory racial statement, but because she, being a liberal, is on the other side of the isle we should ignore it? It cuts both ways for me. The democrats laid the ground rules on such speech. They bear the same responsibility.

Further, can’t you see how telling Hillary’s comment really is? She depends on the repression and dependency of a people in order to maintain her political base!

It’s time to go take care of my future Republicans. Don’t worry, Anonymy, I’m still looking forward to further discussion on your unwillingness to take responsibility and on your “stylistic” moniker.

Lysis said...

Rumpole, there is a difference between a donation and a bribe. Years ago I listened with wonder as Bob Sheaffer railed against politicians for taking donations; them he went to a commercial for ADM. My point, news networks need money to present the news; politicians need money to run for office. Honest people need money just like Democrats. Go figure!!!

joealexander54603746 said...

I read over your blog, and i found it inquisitive, you may find My Blog interesting. My blog is just about my day to day life, as a park ranger. So please Click Here To Read My Blog

http://www.juicyfruiter.blogspot.com

Bryan Hickman said...

While the debate seems to have moved past judicial nominations to Abramoff (mostly because anonymous was losing that debate), there's a few things anonymous has wrong.

The Fortas filibuster had little to do with the Civil Rights Act...or even parties for that matter. Once again, the filibuster was almost equal number Democrat and Republican and had more to do with the procedure than with any ideological issue.

The nomination was withdrawn just days later because it was opposed by a majority of Senators. Incidentally, Fortas resigned from the court less than a year because of a serious ethical scandal (he was taking kickbacks for giving out legal advice).

Of course, anonymous shows the typical leftist penchant for misdirection -- call your opponents racist and change the subject.

And since we're talking about racists, the only Senator who sought to filibuster the Civil Rights Act (don't remember the exact amount of time, but he spoke for several hours) was Robert Byrd. The former Klan member who is still one of the most prominent Senate Democrats.

But...thanks for playing.

Lysis said...

Homerun for Hickman!

Dan Simpson said...

Some of Anonymous' arguments remind me of High School debate where you could win if you could call your opponent either a communist or a Nazi. It is pretty easy to label the other side racist. Less easy to make it actually stick.

To try to label an entire party 'racist' is an incredibly poor debate tactic, besides being completely untrue.

I have always found it interesting how the Democratic Party has been the party for the poor, downtrodden, and minority. Interestingly enough, many large cities who have high percentages of poor minorities have been politically controlled by democrats for years, and somehow the demographics don't really change.

Could it be that Democrat policies do not actually help the poor and 'disenfranchised' out of their bad situations?

With the fear that Bryan will once again label me a 'holier than thou' fence sitter, the Republicans have been unable, recently, to claim much of a better position.

I would refer you to Bryan's Christmas wish on his own blog. It was a great indictment of a Republican party who is hovering just above mediocrity because their only competition is deplorably incompetent and condescending of the views of at least half of the country.

I echo his wish for a vibrant and well organized democratic party that would force the Republicans to do better and actually remember they are the party of smaller government and less spending.

Oh, and Bryan, didn't you get a kick out of that 'hired gun' label. The next time you have your meeting with Orrin to plan his strategies, you should tell him all about it.

Dan Simpson said...

I have a question for any or all of the Anonymous' out there.

If these are true. . .

-The people of Iraq hate us, and want us out.

-The invasion of Iraq has galvanized the opposition like nothing else

-Terrorist recruitment is skyrocketing.

-Al-Qaeda is becoming stronger than ever because of our focus on Iraq instead of Afghanistan

-Our actions in Iraq have alienated all of our allies, and made the muslim world rally together against us.

Then why is it that Bin-Laden is proposing a truce and desires to live peacefully if we will leave Afghanistan and Iraq? (Not believing for a moment he means it.)

Why would he even want it if our actions in Iraq do not hurt, but in fact help his operations?

Anonymous said...

On February 26, the Senate voted to place the bill(Civil Rights Act) on the Senate calendar rather than refer it to the Judiciary committee, which was dominated by SOUTHERNS. On March 26, the Senate agreed to debate on the floor.
Now the SOUTHERNERS began their expected FILIBUSTER.

Humphrey's Democratic forces PREVENTEDthe filibustering by using the parliamentary device of a quorum call, then responding with their voices and their feet, while keeping the floor.
After a bipartisan coalition took control of the House Rules FROM Chairman Smith of Virginia, the panel reported a resolution acceptible Senate version of the bill, ruling that only after a single hour of debate the bill would be allowed on the House floor -- On July 2, the House voted 289-126 to accept the Senate version of the bill. On the same day President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in the East Room of the White House.

Hickman Posted:
"The only Senator who sought to filibuster the Civil Rights Act was Rober Byrd."

Byrd, among others, spoke against THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, not a filibuster that didn't happen (see above) Georgia Democrat Richard Russell offered the final arguments in opposition.

Hickman -- it is a FALSIFICATION and FABRICATION to say that Byrd was THE ONLY SENATOR, when 'old South' Racists were very close to a filibuster of the Civil Rights Act.

Hickman Posts:
"Call your opponents racist and change the subject."

Some I specifically identified were called Racists -- not ALL of my opponents are Racists -- "Me thinks thou dost protest too much."

If you found the topic "changed" after your previous posting it is because my ARGUMENTS were waiting for responses -- they STILL are! I responded to other topics because I had posted to your arguments!!!!

Lysis said...

Once again, our Anonymous friends strain at gnats and swallow camels. Even as I began to despair of his ever adding anything constructive to the discussion, Anonymous, (though which one I am not sure), comes up with this perfect example of the entire point of the post.

In spite of all the spinning of the record, the fact remains that Byrd, the “Dean” of the Democrat Party, was a Klansman, and remains a political opportunist of the most egregious stripe! Go figure!!!!

Anonymous said...

Dan:
The reference was "hired hand" not "hired gun"! -- along with Hickman, you're BOTH shooting blanks!!!!

High school debate?? -- I've always aspired to be a high school debater. I understand it's quite the life.

With all of your instructions on how to debate, I think you missed YOUR true calling . . . as debate coach. Yes, "Debate Coach of the Agora", thank you for your help.

First, Debate Champion at Layton H.S. Then, Champion "whatever" at Weber U. Then Law School at an "accredited" institution in the State of Utah. Then "HIRED GUN" for somebody or other.

Yah, it's quite the life!!!!

Also:
Dan. Simply amazing!
In your last post, you conducted the whole debate -- speeches and rebuttals for both Aff and Neg -told us who the winner was, and, as far as I know, even awarded YOURSELF a trophy, in ONE posting.

Coach: Is that called Auto-debating or Master-debating????

Suppository speaking????

Anonymous said...

And to end the day/week Lysis offers the daily "drive by" insults that he HOPES will be accepted as REAL ARGUMENTS and REBUTTALS.

Come on Debate Coach, rescue your minion!

Lysis: I feel your dispair!!!!

Anonymous said...

Holy corrupt politician's aides. (Understatment meant.) You take a few days off and even Hickman thinks he can start lying. To be fair, he apparently works in Washington, a place known to have that affect on some. By the way, if changing subjects is a mark of defeat then Republican A-Squad in the Agora holds the record for the most consecutive defeats in history! The "debate" on the Civil rights act lasted for 57 working days. Senator Robert C. Byrd spoke continuously fourteen hours thirteen minutes. By the powers of deduction alone - something gifted to those of us with reason - you can see that Senator Byrd was not the only Senator "debating" the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (Information provided to Rumpole at the Senate's own website. Don't bother looking it up though Rumpole, you will see that I am correct, be forced to deny and thus further illustrate that you are indeed out of your mind.) Thank you again for helping to set the story straight Anonymous. I think it is also beneficial to note that the vote on the civil rights bill of 1964 caused another divide in the Democratic party that made the great American political reallignment permanent when desegregation was first made part of the Democratic party platform in 1944 and 1948. Almost one third of remaining democratic constituencies left the Democratic party after that 1964 Civil Rights vote and joined the Republican support. Evidence of this was seen in the 1964 Republican Presidential Nominee, Senator Barry Goldwater - who prominently voted against the Civil Rights Act, picked up four Southern States that had NEVER voted Republican before.

As for Senator Byrd being a racist he has received a %100 percent rating by the NAACP Congressional Report Card for the last three years, and has been one of the consistently highest rated Senators in that report for the last twenty. The next time you take coffee into your boss Mr. Hickman - decaf of course, why don't you ask him how he has been rated by the same association.


DannyBoy2, you ask "why is it that Bin-Laden is proposing a truce and desires to live peacefully if we will leave Afghanistan and Iraq? (Not believing for a moment he means it.)

Why would he even want it if our actions in Iraq do not hurt, but in fact help his operations?"

You must remember that OBL and al-Queda do not want the destruction of America but the re-establishment of the Caliphate - the transnational Islamic empire of the 13th century. Destroying America is only a means to that end since the U.S. is the biggest military obstacle in this scheme (in OBL's mind). Being a smart man he sees that American destruction is not a necessary means and he can convince the U.S. to leave the area al-Queda is one step closer to realizing their dream of the Caliphate and is able to pursue their campaign in the countries they concentrated on long before 9/11: North Africa, Asia Minor, Indonesia and the South Pacific, India, even southern Spain, and the most "holy" prize of Saudi Arabia. OBL does not offer the truce because he is on the ropes but because he sees opportunity to persuade Americans that these areas do not matter to them and will be willing to let the Islamifascists fight for them. Also, al-Queda leadership demonstrates an awareness of media-matters. Zawahiri was quoted last Spring as saying that some tactics that Zarqawi follows - video taped beheadings specifically - will lose the "hearts and minds" of muslims globally. This "truce" is certainly another play for the "hearts and minds" of global muslims who see oppression and corruption by U.S. forces in Iraq by saying, "Just leave. We will not harm you at home if you just leave us alone at home." Al-Queda's stong men know their audience and they use every incompetency of the Bush administration in torture, civilian bombings and extradorniary rendition and false reports about the "reality" in Iraq to play to that audience.

In the meantime, it is true that the majority of people in Iraq hate the U.S. presence and want us to leave as soon as possible (See the ABC, BBC, NBC, AP December poll - the largest freely conducted Iraqi poll ever), the invasion has galvanized world wide muslim opposition to the U.S. like no other, terrorist recruitment is skyrocketing (just see how many suicide bombers attacked U.S. persons prior to 9/11 and how many have done so since - a daily occurence), bin-Laden's myth has grown over the last five years as the U.S. has been strained by Iraqi commitments and allowed him and his inner circle to release audio books of poetry!, and the actions President Bush has committed the U.S. to have alienated all of our allies.

So strain at the gnats of mistakes made by one Senator from West Virginia over forty years ago Liesis and Mr. Hickman, but don't try to swallow the camel of where Bush has dropped the ball in the War on Terror. It is a bite that will choke us all.



And as for wanting a "real" name to go with the Anonymous moniker, Rumpole, get used to disapointment.

Rumpole said...

Anonymy,

Moniker disappointment? Not at all! Being a compassionate conservative, I understand your need to hide behind the cloak of ANONYMITY! There aren’t many out there (excluding people with the courage of a Verus) who would be willing to take personal responsibility for your positions either!

Lysis,

Your point is well taken on the difference between a donation and a bribe. I have pondered deeply over that difference. Along that same line, I have decided my comment was incorrect when I wrote the way to “make Washington better would be to make
all donations illegal.”

Unfortunately the readers of the Agora didn’t hear our conversation on the subject. I hope they will be tolerant of my explanation to you without much of an explanation to them.

I have drawn my conclusion based not on our conversation, but two very different points that we didn’t touch on, as follows:

COMPETITION – Your Bob Scheaffer comment is intriguing, but not completely accurate w/o competition. If there is no competition for advertising dollars, where else would a company like ADM go? Competition makes everyone better. The need to be first and the most accurate drives that engine. Sadly, over the last 30 years (the Walter Cronkite, Dan Rather era) that competition in the media was lacking.

The introduction of the New Media (i.e. Fox, talk radio, the Agora) has revitalized competition in a “soft” (meaning non-competitive) industry.

Donations create that competition whether they are in the form of advertising dollars in the media or in form of contributions in the political arena. However, it is also true that by creating that competition those dollars create the possibility of unethical behavior, which leads me to my second point.

PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY – In my humble view, the only way this “experiment” (our Constitutional Republic) will succeed will be by each citizen taking personal responsibility. As we continue to legislate away that responsibility (i.e. my comment about making all donations illegal) we move our government away from being a Constitutional Republic to one that is destined to fail. Our government CAN FAIL because of a lack of ethics. But it WILL FAIL if we eliminate personal responsibility.

I got off work a little early today! Don’t worry though; I’m only a small player. The powerful Bush economy won’t grind to a halt, so you can continue wallowing at the public trough without concern. Besides, I have to make sure I feed my little Republicans!

Lysis said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Lysis said...

I’d like to begin by congratulating Dannyboy and Bryan for the marked success their hard work has brought into their lives. Bryan, I’m sure the Senator benefits even more from your brilliance than we do. Keep up the good work.

Anonymous, you gave me such a chuckle. I was able to picture you flying about like a sputtering balloon, whipping wildly about the room until its foul air was spent and then falling flat and flaccid to the floor. It was a hoot!!! One serious question – do you really believe what you are saying?

As to you rant on Civil Rights; it is telling that you have to go back to the 60’s to find a Democrat Party fighting for anything but power? As for the NAACP, it is a racist organization; as far from its founding ideals as the Democrats. The NAACP just gave Harry Belophonte (sp) an award from calling President Bush a terrorist. Seems’ like Anonymous is seeking similar recognition.

Anonymous, your support for Bin-Laden’s dream of a superpower Caliphate is one of the most spasmodic of your spurts. How many Spanish Christians and Indian Hindus would you countenance killing so Osama can be satisfied and live in peace? I was interested that you threw in the South Pacific as well. Neville Chamberlain was willing to stop at enslaving a few million Czechoslovakians. How far will your appeasement binge take you?

What is even more telling is where Osama and Zawahiri really want to go. Their dream is not of a Super state that will sit still and let flaccid fools live in peace; it is their stated goal to enslave the world, and kill you!

As for your Move-On-Dote propaganda; most is so much slobber spattering from your blowout. I will mock one drop; the majority of Iraqis believe they are better off with American in Baghdad and Saddam in the dock. Does that “now free” people wish they didn’t need US help, you bet, do people in the US wish their precious heroes didn’t have to sacrifice for our lives and freedom, indeed they do; do the majority of Americans or anyone else, save terrorists, want to turn half the world over to Osama, NO!

I’m glad to hear Osama is writing poetry. Must get boring there in the cave! I imagine he spends a lot of time sputtering about in frustration and anger until he flops flaccid into a wrinkled little pile on the floor. It’s been a long downward spiral for Bin Laden’s dream, from Caliph of the world to leaking balloon.

Anonymous, I have decided to make a good faith effort to identify you from amongst the pall of anonymity. I dub you Flaccid. Looking forward to addressing you in the future.

Rumpole, I submit that we already have a way to deal with bribe takers. First, let the indictments fly, let the courts sit, let the criminals pay. Secondly, let the truth out and let the voters vote. Punishment for crooked politics should be exacted at the ballot box.

Anonymous said...

Liesis, only in your extreme world -and an extremely bizarre one it is - does analyzing the actions and motivations of our enemies equal their appeasment. Your every post makes your stated goal of a pursuit for truth more and more laughable. You are no more interested in a serious investigation of the world than our President who couldn't name five foriegn leaders in 2000. "The truth" to you is a political brand pushed by Republican Talking Heads that has no necessary foundation in reality. No one in this forum has called for the enslavement of the world, for the muder of millions, to abandon the war on terror or for al-Queda victory. Save your hyperbole for your "history" classes. I have always called for the war on terror to be prosecuted with competence, justice and efficacy. It is understandable that you, as a Bush administration devotee, call this approach a flacid one, but it is your generalized arguments and failed policies that lie limp in your hands.

Yes, this history I have expanded on is correct. No, discussing it in detail does not equal appeasment. Yes, calling your opponents terrorists and not being outraged that the perpatrators of September 11th are still at large five years later but rather making light of how bad life must be for them "in a cave" is "swallowing the camel." Remember, Bush's incompetent prosecution of this war relies on people like you who keep their eyes closed, bow down on their knees before him, and swallow.


(One more note: OBL and his cohorts lived in caves voluntarily for years before the Afgahn invasion so how has the war effort made any difference if this all you have to show for it!?? Be outraged that he is still at large plotting, inspiring, commanding instead of rotting in jail where he belongs.)

Lysis said...

Flaccid,

Your limp response does not impress. Your lecture above, “reminding” us, “that OBL and al-Queda do not want the destruction of American but the re-establishment of the Caliphate – the transnational Islamic empire of the 13th century . . .” fizzled into a apology for terrorism and an attempt to blame the murders committed by Osama on President Bush. Your pretence that the condition al-Queda has been reduced to is as OBL has always dreamed, from his chosen cave, is so much bad air. Your stretch to blame Bush for the “gains” of Islamic-Fascists falls flat. Neither you, nor the Democrat Party, whose water you carry, has ever offered any “plan” to better prosecute the war.

Predicting that the U.S. could not defeat the Taliban, the Democrats were soon complaining that the U.S. attacked too violently against then at Torah Bora, and then that the U.S. didn’t attack them hard enough; complaining that America was committing too many resources to a second war in Iraq the naysayers then lamented that the President did not send more; reviling Bush for not following his military commanders, the opposition now complains that he did not override their opinions; having bemoaned that the President was not aggressive enough in the war on terror the politicos now attack his actions against terrorists; this is the political method of the left. There is a word for such flip flopping, flaccid!

Anonymous said...

Liesis, I have never made an apology for terrorism. I have never blamed the homicidal acts of 9/11 on George Bush, and again, please pay close attention this time since you NEVER have before, I have never called for anything but justice, competence, and efficacy in prosecuting the War on Terror. Your dreamed up accusations of appeasement are beneath me and anyone else with an ability to read at a fourth grade level. You seem not to be able. I did not say the War on Terror has gone as OBL has predicted it would. I say again, if all you have to show for the progress in that war is that OBL lives in a cave today you should be aware that he chose to live in a cave for years before the Afgahn invasion. You need another stick to measure the progress of the U.S. campaign against him. How about "Dead or Alive and Captured." Your hero made that demand, but you probably forgot about it. He did too. Now we all hope nothing happens while he is still at large and we are busy picking up from the cowboy party in Iraq. And now you run from the arguments made here to another topic already. Run away. Flee. I am afraid you will never be forced to face a reasoned conversation, only a chorus of "Dittos" and cold adulation from the dead. It will be a very quiet chorus.

Lysis said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Lysis said...

Flaccid,

As I have told you, I am willing to dealing with more than one topic at a time Please continue to post on this string. I would note that making claims about what you have and haven’t said and what I have and haven’t read seems a rather flaccid line of argument.

You claim you never wrote that, “The war has gone as OBL has predicted it would.” Let me give you back your own words, or at least the words you used. “You must remember that OBL and al-Queda do not want the destruction of America but the reestablishment of the Caliphate – the transnational Islamic empire of the 13th century.” Flaccid, you then assert to open Osama’s mind to us. He thinks, you claim, “that destroying American is a means to this end.” You then credit OBL as a smart man, manipulating the U.S. into deserting the Middle East. You then praise the al-Qaeda’s leadership’s awareness of media matters. You spout a series of untrue accusations about corrupt U.S. forces in Iraq, and falsely spread the terrorist lies that the Bush administration is involved in torture, and civilian bombings. You misrepresent the attitudes of the Iraqi people and claim some pretended galvanization of Muslim opposition to the U.S. All these “success” of al-Qaeda you tout, while you give us this bunk about Osama’s choosing to live in a cave as evidence that he is only doing what he has desired all along. So much for your claim of having never said such things and so much for bin Laden’s Caliphate.

Flaccid, I recommend you read your own words. If they are unconvincing to anyone beyond a 4th grade mental level, blame your inability to write not mine to read. Your ranting flops flat because your arguments have a hole in them. They are not true. Patch the leak with some facts, not limp accusations.

us government grants said...

IM TELLING YOU HOW....Do you know or have you ever heard of Gotting Money from us government grants ..If you are interested in finding out how to get more info on us government grants visit us at http://allgrants4u.com... There are so many things you can get grants for.. Homes, school, work, business, college..ect.. Find out how everybody is getting money from us government grants today... Quit living in poverty educate yourself and improve your life..

Medicine said...

More and more Teddy Kennedy has become
identified as the face of the Democrats.