• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Cowardly democrats

C

charrison

Lifer
Cowardly democrats


The Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee today engaged in an unusual voting maneuver that signaled their disapproval of one of President Bush's judicial nominees even as they cleared the way for his confirmation.

They first allowed the nominee, Judge Dennis Shedd, to be approved by a voice vote. Then, one by one, each of the Democrats present asked to be recorded as having voted against him.
Click to expand...


It is time for the democrats to stand for something.
 
it will be two years of this, they might be the minority , but they will use all the tricks to roadblock and stall
 
Anyone who can't face an issuse will be shot before they are smart enought to crush it...
I am probably a bit Republican for most peoples tastes but at least we don't steal from law abiding citizens nearly so badly
 
Originally posted by: Bluefront
Like what for instance?
Click to expand...

Well if they really dont think this judge should be appointed, they should vote what they think.
This roll over and then vote no is pretty silly.
 
Originally posted by: josphII
dont be so repeditive, to be a democrat means you are cowardly to begin with
Click to expand...
As much as I disagree with the Democratic party, it's attitudes like yours that make me detest the Republicans. You call them cowards because they stand up for what they believe even though they are in the minority? Somehow that sounds more heroic than cowardly. Cowardly is playing it safe, doing what the majority wants, calling those who have different views than the mainstream cowards. Disagreeing with them in one thing, but to label them as unpatriotic or cowards because they have different views than you? Sounds like something the National Socialist Party did in Germany during the 30's
 
Why do so many people find it impossible to understand that for every dumb fvcking thing a democrat does, a republican has done something just as bad? The whole "team" mentality when it comes to politics always baffles me.
 
Originally posted by: Bluefront
Like what for instance?
Click to expand...

How about something other than simply disagreeing with everything the Republicans say? That's all the Dems do these days. They have no alternative plans, they just criticize the plans the Republicans present.
 
Haha, so what... you think the republicans would be different if the government had switched the other way? It's politics as usual.
 
Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Originally posted by: Bluefront
Like what for instance?
Click to expand...

How about something other than simply disagreeing with everything the Republicans say? That's all the Dems do these days. They have no alternative plans, they just criticize the plans the Republicans present.
Click to expand...

They are currently the opposition party, because that is all they can or want to do, oppose.
 
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: josphII
dont be so repeditive, to be a democrat means you are cowardly to begin with
Click to expand...
As much as I disagree with the Democratic party, it's attitudes like yours that make me detest the Republicans. You call them cowards because they stand up for what they believe even though they are in the minority? Somehow that sounds more heroic than cowardly. Cowardly is playing it safe, doing what the majority wants, calling those who have different views than the mainstream cowards. Disagreeing with them in one thing, but to label them as unpatriotic or cowards because they have different views than you? Sounds like something the National Socialist Party did in Germany during the 30's
Click to expand...

Red they did not stand up, the folded and complained afterwards. Leadership is about going against the grain, not playing it safe.
 
I agree that they should not have voted in this fashion. Let your yes mean yes, and your no mean no. Do recall though that the republicans blocked Clintons appointments by some creative moves. To criticize one party for doing x when the other side does the same when it is their turn is hypocritical. All parties pull crap because they are in opposition in many areas. Political fact of life. That does not mean I think it is right, but I acknowlege the shortcomings of their guy AND mine.
 
I see no reason for us to stand there while we get our a$$e$ kicked! And having a political gridlock will just weaken us further
 
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
I agree that they should not have voted in this fashion. Let your yes mean yes, and your no mean no. Do recall though that the republicans blocked Clintons appointments by some creative moves. To criticize one party for doing x when the other side does the same when it is their turn is hypocritical. All parties pull crap because they are in opposition in many areas. Political fact of life. That does not mean I think it is right, but I acknowlege the shortcomings of their guy AND mine.
Click to expand...

Look it up dimwit! Most of Clinton's nominations were APPROVED by a Republican controlled Congress! Bush even approved several Democrat nominees AFTER he became President.

 
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
I agree that they should not have voted in this fashion. Let your yes mean yes, and your no mean no. Do recall though that the republicans blocked Clintons appointments by some creative moves. To criticize one party for doing x when the other side does the same when it is their turn is hypocritical. All parties pull crap because they are in opposition in many areas. Political fact of life. That does not mean I think it is right, but I acknowlege the shortcomings of their guy AND mine.
Click to expand...


About 80% of the clintons judges got approved. That is not a bad record at all.
 
Most of Clinton's nominations were APPROVED by a Republican controlled Congress!
Click to expand...

And the same thing can be said about Bush's appointments and the Dem. Congress.........the vast majority of Bush's nominations were approved without a challenge.........something like 80%.
 
Originally posted by: C'DaleRider
Most of Clinton's nominations were APPROVED by a Republican controlled Congress!
Click to expand...

And the same thing can be said about Bush's appointments and the Dem. Congress.........the vast majority of Bush's nominations were approved without a challenge.........something like 80%.
Click to expand...


No, his judge approval rate is well under 40%, unless you mean Bush Senior...
 
Red they did not stand up, the folded and complained afterwards
Click to expand...

Actually, what you quoted originally does not say that at all.......it says the nominee was approved by voice vote. As you don't understand voice votes, guess you slept through civics, it means a mass Yea or Nay, no counting. The approval is determined by the volume of the voices; the more volume, the more voices/votes. Having each Nay individually heard and counted is to make sure each is recorded and not just an en masse count. Nothing cowardly about having your vote actually individually recorded instead of the mass Yea that the Repubs. did.
 
Originally posted by: Tominator
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider I agree that they should not have voted in this fashion. Let your yes mean yes, and your no mean no. Do recall though that the republicans blocked Clintons appointments by some creative moves. To criticize one party for doing x when the other side does the same when it is their turn is hypocritical. All parties pull crap because they are in opposition in many areas. Political fact of life. That does not mean I think it is right, but I acknowlege the shortcomings of their guy AND mine.
Click to expand...
Look it up dimwit! Most of Clinton's nominations were APPROVED by a Republican controlled Congress! Bush even approved several Democrat nominees AFTER he became President.
Click to expand...

Ok,to the petty side of things, I shall be Dimwit, and you shall be numbnuts.

Numb, the Republicans tried blocking. They perhaps did not as vigorously pursue it. Please show above where I said it was good for either side. I believe the judges should be weighed on their merits. One of the first realizations of the last election was that we were finally going to get judges and I was pleased. Oh Numb, I voted for Bush, and at this moment do not believe I would have changed that vote if I could. Now Numb, I realize it is difficult for you to understand that some people believe a thing is right or wrong based on its merits, not its party affiliation. This occasionally does happen. Last thing Numb, Wasnt it hard getting the helmet up your ass in the first place?
 
Originally posted by: C'DaleRider
Red they did not stand up, the folded and complained afterwards
Click to expand...

Actually, what you quoted originally does not say that at all.......it says the nominee was approved by voice vote. As you don't understand voice votes, guess you slept through civics, it means a mass Yea or Nay, no counting. The approval is determined by the volume of the voices; the more volume, the more voices/votes. Having each Nay individually heard and counted is to make sure each is recorded and not just an en masse count. Nothing cowardly about having your vote actually individually recorded instead of the mass Yea that the Repubs. did.
Click to expand...


They control this committee, if they all voted nay, it would have stopped there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top