PDA

View Full Version : Obama/Bush



J Hoggatt
04-11-2010, 10:36 PM
I was looking on Facebook this evening... and a former friend of mine joined this group

"Stop Blaming Obama for all of Bush's mistakes" --- OMG -- Hypocrisy has no bounds.

Q: What reality do you live in?

paul young
04-12-2010, 05:29 AM
the one in which SOME people understand that when the outgoing president has mucked things up, his successor has to deal with it. the one where not all problems can be solved in a year, and in fact might not be able to be solved for many years.

but it's evident to me that there are multiple realities in America today. there is no unity in the United States today, only factions taking cheap shots at each other whenever they can.
amazingly, it is still the best country to live in in this world, but i'm not sure how much longer this can last with so many looking to "defeat" whatever or whoever they disagree with.

that is the biggest difference between the country of my youth and the one i live in today; we used to disagree over how the country should be run, but recognized that the government we had was elected by the people and should have an opportunity to govern. now the opposing factions immediately attack and attempt to keep the elected officials from doing their job.-Paul

ducknwork
04-12-2010, 06:52 AM
Paul, how did it come to pass that Americans are so divided and attack others with no concern for the country as a whole? I have my theory, but I want to hear yours.

paul young
04-12-2010, 07:35 AM
i'm still not sure how it happened. i think it may be a change in our culture at its most basic levels. everyone is obsessed with what is best for them, not the country. this is evident at all levels of government, not just at the federal level.

here's just a few examples at the local and state level;

local government- the people who don't have children of school age don't think their tax money should be spent to educate the kids in their town. they show up at school budget hearings and disrupt proceedings. in cases where the budget has to be voted on (the case in many small towns in my area), they vote down every proposed increase to the education budget. this is NOT in the communities' best interest as the quality of education suffers. buildings are not properly maintained, programs for both over and underachievers are dropped, extracurriculars are dropped, new equipment and books don't get bought, etc.

state- pretty much the same type of stuff. "don't raise my taxes, but maintain the roads, staff and maintain the state forests and parks, stock the trout, create jobs, subsidise public transportation, etc." in short- i want it all; i just don't want to pay for it.


it's an attitude of entitlement- BUT only THEY are entitled; to hell with everyone else.-Paul

BonMallari
04-12-2010, 07:38 AM
Paul, how did it come to pass that Americans are so divided and attack others with no concern for the country as a whole? I have my theory, but I want to hear yours.

I dont know about Paul's answer but two things come to my mind...TV and the internet...the 24/7 news cycle tells us nothing but negativity and the internet allows us in the flash of microsecond to argue about what we just saw and heard moments before...look how quickly here on POTUS certain hot button threads bring everyone out of the woodworks to opine..

paul young
04-12-2010, 07:45 AM
Bon,

those are certainly good points. both related to our culture today Vs. the culture of the written word which is now history.

i think you have identified what has enabled the process. -Paul

zeus3925
04-12-2010, 08:06 AM
I was born during World War II. The ideological shift among the following generation, the Boomers, never ceases to amaze me. During the Viet Nam war they were generally extreme left and anti- government. But they wanted all the rights and benefits the nation offered but they weren't going to meet any of the obligations expected of them.

Over the years, that generation has become extreme right and still anti-government. They want all the goods and services of government but don't want to meet any obligation in return.

road kill
04-12-2010, 08:25 AM
I was born during World War II. The ideological shift among the following generation, the Boomers, never ceases to amaze me. During the Viet Nam war they were generally extreme left and anti- government. But they wanted all the rights and benefits the nation offered but they weren't going to meet any of the obligations expected of them.

Over the years, that generation has become extreme right and still anti-government. They want all the goods and services of government but don't want to meet any obligation in return.

Really.......which one are you?

(BTW---who raised those Boomers??)




rk

dnf777
04-12-2010, 09:13 AM
Bon,

those are certainly good points. both related to our culture today Vs. the culture of the written word which is now history.

i think you have identified what has enabled the process. -Paul

Here's a thought regarding the divisions within America, in the context of the likely very ugly Supreme Court nominee by Obama. (no matter WHO it is, he/she will be attacked harshly from the right, they've already said so without even knowing who it will be!!)

think of this: Justice Stevens was approved by the senate 98-0!! Think that'll ever happen again??

Pete
04-12-2010, 09:13 AM
[QUOTE]Over the years, that generation has become extreme right and still anti-government. They want all the goods and services of government but don't want to meet any obligation in return./QUOTE]

Horse manure
The extreme right wants government to spend less and have less social programs and stay they hell out of their business. But wants to pay a fair tax.

Liberal obligations are impossible to meet unless you print more money and steal from the rich,,,then they can experience their utopia for a few months until reality comes home to roost.

BonMallari
04-12-2010, 09:34 AM
Here's a thought regarding the divisions within America, in the context of the likely very ugly Supreme Court nominee by Obama. (no matter WHO it is, he/she will be attacked harshly from the right, they've already said so without even knowing who it will be!!)

think of this: Justice Stevens was approved by the senate 98-0!! Think that'll ever happen again??

probably never again in our lifetime...I think that politics entered in the SCOTUS process with Bork, intensified with Clarence Thomas, and got downright ugly with Alito....how much worse can it get ? I think we are about to find out :(

luvmylabs23139
04-12-2010, 09:59 AM
[quote=paul young;597881]
here's just a few examples at the local and state level;

local government- the people who don't have children of school age don't think their tax money should be spent to educate the kids in their town. they show up at school budget hearings and disrupt proceedings. in cases where the budget has to be voted on (the case in many small towns in my area), they vote down every proposed increase to the education budget. this is NOT in the communities' best interest as the quality of education suffers. buildings are not properly maintained, programs for both over and underachievers are dropped, extracurriculars are dropped, new equipment and books don't get bought, etc.

40 years ago it was the same at least in the town I grew up in in CT. The biggest difference is that it was the New Yorkers with summer lake houses voting against the school budget. AT least in the towns in CT the school budget is voted on by the residents.
Property owners should be able to directly vote on what they want their tax money spent on.
Here in NC the actual tax payers do not get to vote on the school budget.
The animals in the jungle that pay no taxes are allowed to vote to steal other people's money.
I wish the city had to pay for their animal brats that waste tax money,
of they want to disrupt their schools, we in the burbs should not pay for that!!!!
Wall in the animals and let them pay for the jungle they create!!!!!!

Hew
04-12-2010, 10:44 AM
I was born during World War II. The ideological shift among the following generation, the Boomers, never ceases to amaze me. During the Viet Nam war they were generally extreme left and anti- government. But they wanted all the rights and benefits the nation offered but they weren't going to meet any of the obligations expected of them.

Over the years, that generation has become extreme right and still anti-government. They want all the goods and services of government but don't want to meet any obligation in return.
What?!? I think you'll have a very hard time coming up with any articles, studies, polls, etc. that support the notion that yesterday's hippies are today's "extreme right."

Hew
04-12-2010, 11:00 AM
I think that politics entered in the SCOTUS process with Bork, intensified with Clarence Thomas, and got downright ugly with Alito....how much worse can it get ? I think we are about to find out :(
You're right; the win-at-all costs nastiness started with Bork and then got worse for Thomas. I thought Alito was treated pretty fairly, overall, though. As was Sotomayor. The stakes are high, so I don't think they should be exempt from tough questions.

I agree that whoever Obama nominates is going to have some tough sledding. Look for the GOP Senators to try to throw as many parlimentary roadblocks as possible to try and stall confirmation hearings until after the November elections when they think the numbers will be more in their favor to get a more acceptable Obama nominee.

Cody Covey
04-12-2010, 11:10 AM
but why waste "political capital" on a justice that will for sure be put through anyway? cast your vote and be done with it. Doesn't make sense to bitch about parlimentary tricks then use them on something that WILL happen no matter what you throw at it..Not to mention it doesn't really change the dynamic of the court.

Zeus what makes you think that conservatives want bigger government but not to have to pay any taxes? I think you will find no one on this board that wants more government. All here (i think thats safe to say) want smaller government and less taxes. Did Bush royally screw that up? YES. Like I've seen Yardley say many times, if you are going to cut taxes you need to also cut spending. That is what conservatives want. Does that always translate to those we elect actually doing that? No but then again look at the platform Obama ran on and look at the deficit we have now.

Hew
04-12-2010, 11:29 AM
but why waste "political capital" on a justice that will for sure be put through anyway? cast your vote and be done with it. Doesn't make sense to bitch about parlimentary tricks then use them on something that WILL happen no matter what you throw at it..Not to mention it doesn't really change the dynamic of the court.
Ah, but the justice won't necessarily be "put through anyway." The Democrats fought tooth and nail against Bork. When they succeeded, Reagan nominated the generally disappointing Anthony Kennedy instead. As you said, a judge will confirmed eventually...it's just a matter of how bad she (a guess ;-)) will be. And that's something the GOP can (and will) and should definately fight about with whatever means they have at their disposal.

Obama will be walking a tightrope with this nominee. If he nominates a lefty activist judge he will be giving the GOP plenty of ammo for the November elections. He's already created plenty of "broken glass" Republicans as it is (as in "they'll crawl bare belly through broken glass to cast their vote"). If he nominates a judge who has a record of supporting partial birth abortion, lax enforcement of illegal immigration, is soft on crime or other "hot button issue" he'll be adding to the Dems misery come Nov.

ducknwork
04-12-2010, 11:46 AM
i'm still not sure how it happened. i think it may be a change in our culture at its most basic levels. everyone is obsessed with what is best for them, not the country. this is evident at all levels of government, not just at the federal level.

here's just a few examples at the local and state level;

local government- the people who don't have children of school age don't think their tax money should be spent to educate the kids in their town. they show up at school budget hearings and disrupt proceedings. in cases where the budget has to be voted on (the case in many small towns in my area), they vote down every proposed increase to the education budget. this is NOT in the communities' best interest as the quality of education suffers. buildings are not properly maintained, programs for both over and underachievers are dropped, extracurriculars are dropped, new equipment and books don't get bought, etc.

state- pretty much the same type of stuff. "don't raise my taxes, but maintain the roads, staff and maintain the state forests and parks, stock the trout, create jobs, subsidise public transportation, etc." in short- i want it all; i just don't want to pay for it.


it's an attitude of entitlement- BUT only THEY are entitled; to hell with everyone else.-Paul


I dont know about Paul's answer but two things come to my mind...TV and the internet...the 24/7 news cycle tells us nothing but negativity and the internet allows us in the flash of microsecond to argue about what we just saw and heard moments before...look how quickly here on POTUS certain hot button threads bring everyone out of the woodworks to opine..

Well, I have to say that when you answered my question, you must have read my mind...I was going to say that it is the fault of the media and the general me me me attitude of individuals in this country.

dnf777
04-12-2010, 02:48 PM
Ah, but the justice won't necessarily be "put through anyway." The Democrats fought tooth and nail against Bork. When they succeeded, Reagan nominated the generally disappointing Anthony Kennedy instead. As you said, a judge will confirmed eventually...it's just a matter of how bad she (a guess ;-)) will be. And that's something the GOP can (and will) and should definately fight about with whatever means they have at their disposal.

Obama will be walking a tightrope with this nominee. If he nominates a lefty activist judge he will be giving the GOP plenty of ammo for the November elections. He's already created plenty of "broken glass" Republicans as it is (as in "they'll crawl bare belly through broken glass to cast their vote"). If he nominates a judge who has a record of supporting partial birth abortion, lax enforcement of illegal immigration, is soft on crime or other "hot button issue" he'll be adding to the Dems misery come Nov.

Both sides will need to tread carefully here. Obama, as you pointed out. The republicans also, as not to be seen as mere obstructionists. (which they are, BTW, by their own admission) Only once has a SCOTUS nominee been filibustered to block nomination. I wouldn't want to be the second senate to do so.

captainjack
04-12-2010, 03:17 PM
...the people who don't have children of school age don't think their tax money should be spent to educate the kids in their town...

Paul,
Why should their tax money be used to pay for your kids education? If you could not afford to pay for your own kids education, you should have kept it in your pants. Although, I'd say that if your property and other taxes were lower and schools had to compete for students, you may be able to afford it.

Let's say you go out for dinner with 4 of your buddy's... You order a side salad and have water to drink while your buddies get T-Bone steaks, appetizers, deserts, and have several drinks. How do you split the check?

Wouldn't it be hippocritical of you not to split the check evenly? In fact, let's say that one of your buddies doesn't work because he thinks the government should take care of him. He's perfectly capable, but just doesn't like it. Shouldn't your group let him eat the T-Bone and not pay anything at all, splitting the check among the others that actually work for a living?

After all, wasn't our Country founded on the principals of collectivism?

YardleyLabs
04-12-2010, 03:38 PM
...
I wish the city had to pay for their animal brats that waste tax money,
of they want to disrupt their schools, we in the burbs should not pay for that!!!!
Wall in the animals and let them pay for the jungle they create!!!!!!
Is the "city" you reference is New York, as it appears to be? If so, are you aware that New York is a net exporter of tax dollars? Taxes from NYC pay for a large share of the public services received in the suburbs and upstate (not to mention the fact that it also pays for their water supplies throuh a quirk of history). New Yor also is a big contributor to the rest of the country's tax revenues, which far outweigh the Federal aid it receives.

paul young
04-12-2010, 03:51 PM
Glen, i just love hypotheticals......

given your logic why should i pay for the snow to be plowed on a street i don't live on and drive on? why should i pay for that street to paved? why should i pay to operate the sewage plant? after all, maybe i only sh!t once a day and "they" do it twice!

it's called the price of living in a community. caring for your neighbors and the way everyone coexists.

i don't have any school age children. mine are grown. and i am glad to contribute to the public education of the children in my community.

you see, it's not all about me......-Paul

road kill
04-12-2010, 03:54 PM
Glen, i just love hypotheticals......

given your logic why should i pay for the snow to be plowed on a street i don't live on and drive on? why should i pay for that street to paved? why should i pay to operate the sewage plant? after all, maybe i only sh!t once a day and "they" do it twice!

it's called the price of living in a community. caring for your neighbors and the way everyone coexists.

i don't have any school age children. mine are grown. and i am glad to contribute to the public education of the children in my community.

you see, it's not all about me......-Paul

At my age, I am NOOOOO good till the third round!!

Can I get a witness????:D



rk

paul young
04-12-2010, 04:00 PM
Stan, you crack me up!!!! ROFLMAO!!!-Paul

Hew
04-12-2010, 04:15 PM
Both sides will need to tread carefully here. Obama, as you pointed out. The republicans also, as not to be seen as mere obstructionists. (which they are, BTW, by their own admission) Only once has a SCOTUS nominee been filibustered to block nomination. I wouldn't want to be the second senate to do so.
And lookie at who voted in favor of the last attempted fillibuster of a Supreme Court nominee....why it's our very own Barrack Hussein Obama. Joining BHO in voting for a filibuster of Supreme Court nominee Alito was Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid and Patrick Leahy. You gonna add them to your famous hypocrite list, DNF?

dnf777
04-12-2010, 04:25 PM
Last time I checked, Alito was an associate Justice of the court, no? Was there a filibuster? I don't think so. Now, what were you saying again?

And personally, I don't think there should ever be a filibuster of a SCOTUS nominee, by either party. Its one of the spoils of election. Unless there is a constitutional barrier to someone's nomination, the president who won the last election gets his man or woman. While I don't want a far left nominee, I think it would be a mistake for Obama to try and appease the right by appointing a right leaning moderate. He should appoint someone as far to the left, as alito and Roberts are to the right. Essentially, he's the POTUS, and should appoint whomever the he!! he want to!

BonMallari
04-12-2010, 04:34 PM
Last time I checked, Alito was an associate Justice of the court, no? Was there a filibuster? I don't think so. Now, what were you saying again?

And personally, I don't think there should ever be a filibuster of a SCOTUS nominee, by either party. Its one of the spoils of election. Unless there is a constitutional barrier to someone's nomination, the president who won the last election gets his man or woman. While I don't want a far left nominee, I think it would be a mistake for Obama to try and appease the right by appointing a right leaning moderate. He should appoint someone as far to the left, as Alito and Roberts are to the right. Essentially, he's the POTUS, and should appoint whomever the he!! he want to!

IMHO he should appoint the most qualified jurist, if he chooses one based on political ideology,it does just the opposite of what the true intention of SCOTUS is...I can dream cant I ?

Hew
04-12-2010, 04:40 PM
Last time I checked, Alito was an associate Justice of the court, no? Was there a filibuster? I don't think so. Now, what were you saying again?

And personally, I don't think there should ever be a filibuster of a SCOTUS nominee, by either party. Its one of the spoils of election. Unless there is a constitutional barrier to someone's nomination, the president who won the last election gets his man or woman. While I don't want a far left nominee, I think it would be a mistake for Obama to try and appease the right by appointing a right leaning moderate. He should appoint someone as far to the left, as alito and Roberts are to the right. Essentially, he's the POTUS, and should appoint whomever the he!! he want to!

Hmmmm..... So the DNF logic is as follows: Obama et al voted for a filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee and that doesn't count because he was on the losing end of the vote. And Bush was an imperial president who did whatever he wanted but Obama should be able to give a liftetime appointment to "whomever the he!!! he want to!"

What was it again you were saying about hypocrisy?

ducknwork
04-12-2010, 04:57 PM
Paul,
Why should their tax money be used to pay for your kids education? If you could not afford to pay for your own kids education, you should have kept it in your pants. Although, I'd say that if your property and other taxes were lower and schools had to compete for students, you may be able to afford it.

Let's say you go out for dinner with 4 of your buddy's... You order a side salad and have water to drink while your buddies get T-Bone steaks, appetizers, deserts, and have several drinks. How do you split the check?

Wouldn't it be hippocritical of you not to split the check evenly? In fact, let's say that one of your buddies doesn't work because he thinks the government should take care of him. He's perfectly capable, but just doesn't like it. Shouldn't your group let him eat the T-Bone and not pay anything at all, splitting the check among the others that actually work for a living?

After all, wasn't our Country founded on the principals of collectivism?

OK, don't pay for my kids education. BUT, effective immediately, Social Security no longer exists. See, it's not fair to take the money from all of us youngsters to pay for you old farts. Have fun eating your ramen, because we're not paying one red cent from here on out. No severance, no subsidies. You old guys are just flat cut off from the government payroll. Hope you can make that last check go a looooong way!

Sounds kinda silly from that angle, huh?

dnf777
04-12-2010, 05:45 PM
Hmmmm..... So the DNF logic is as follows: Obama et al voted for a filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee and that doesn't count because he was on the losing end of the vote. And Bush was an imperial president who did whatever he wanted but Obama should be able to give a liftetime appointment to "whomever the he!!! he want to!"

What was it again you were saying about hypocrisy?

First, any president duly elected (I'll even put Bush in this category for the purpose of this argument) has the right to appoint his choice to SCOTUS. No hypocrisy there.

Second, yes, Obama, or any other president can appoint whomever the he!! he wants to. That's not me, that's the Constitution. Again, no hypocrisy.

Third, Bush pushed through more recess-nominations (not SCOTUS) than any other president is history. Just a fact, not hypocrisy. SCOTUS nominations come with the territory, and the minority party needs to respect that. While the "corporate citizenship" decision by the Roberts Court shows they blatantly lied about not being constructionists or activists during their confirmation hearings....it is what it is. Now it's Obama's turn to get his pick.

Marvin S
04-12-2010, 06:11 PM
And personally, I don't think there should ever be a filibuster of a SCOTUS nominee, by either party. Its one of the spoils of election. Unless there is a constitutional barrier to someone's nomination, the president who won the last election gets his man or woman. While I don't want a far left nominee, I think it would be a mistake for Obama to try and appease the right by appointing a right leaning moderate. He should appoint someone as far to the left, as alito and Roberts are to the right. Essentially, he's the POTUS, and should appoint whomever the he!! he want to!

When Bork got Borked, we ended up with Kennedy, who is a male SD O'Connor. But the R's should really ask for their seats back, I believe it was an R POTUS who appointed Souter & an Appointed R POTUS who appointed Stevens. So the left holds seats they are not entitled to.


First, any president duly elected (I'll even put Bush in this category for the purpose of this argument) has the right to appoint his choice to SCOTUS. No hypocrisy there.

Second, yes, Obama, or any other president can appoint whomever the he!! he wants to. That's not me, that's the Constitution. Again, no hypocrisy.

Third, Bush pushed through more recess-nominations (not SCOTUS) than any other president is history. Just a fact, not hypocrisy. SCOTUS nominations come with the territory, and the minority party needs to respect that. While the "corporate citizenship" decision by the Roberts Court shows they blatantly lied about not being constructionists or activists during their confirmation hearings....it is what it is. Now it's Obama's turn to get his pick.

If you remember correctly GWB wanted to appoint Harriet Myers & it was the conservatives who raised hob about that. But she was probably as qualified as Sonia.

As for the recess nominations, I believe that had a lot to do with your party blocking qualifications of eminently qualified jurists & a UN slot.

dnf777
04-12-2010, 06:16 PM
If you remember correctly GWB wanted to appoint Harriet Myers & it was the conservatives who raised hob about that. But she was probably as qualified as Sonia.

As for the recess nominations, I believe that had a lot to do with your party blocking qualifications of eminently qualified jurists & a UN slot.

I do recall Harriet Myers. She was a poor choice, and Bush's own party let him know it. No problem there.

Not my party. But I will grant you like I said, unless there is a constitutional barrier, the POTUS should get his choices. Spoils of election.

subroc
04-12-2010, 06:43 PM
an interesting take on former President George W. Bush.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-04-12/will-bush-be-the-next-truman/?cid=bs:archive5

captainjack
04-13-2010, 08:10 AM
OK, don't pay for my kids education. BUT, effective immediately, Social Security no longer exists. See, it's not fair to take the money from all of us youngsters to pay for you old farts. Have fun eating your ramen, because we're not paying one red cent from here on out. No severance, no subsidies. You old guys are just flat cut off from the government payroll. Hope you can make that last check go a looooong way!

Sounds kinda silly from that angle, huh?

No ducknwork, that doesn't sound silly at all. Here is a little history lesson for you. Evidently they don't teach history now days.

The Social Security Act was signed by FDR on 8/14/35. Taxes were collected for the first time in January 1937 and the first one-time, lump-sum payments were made that same month. Regular ongoing monthly benefits started in January 1940. http://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html

How in the World did all those people make it for the first 164 years of our Nations existance. Oh, maybe it was that they took the personal initiative to not spend every cent they had on stuff they couldn't afford and didn't need. Maybe they set a bit aside for and took personal responsibility for their own retirement. What a wierd thing to do, take personal responsibility!

Maybe you should change your handle from ducknwork to ducknlookforahandout

captainjack
04-13-2010, 08:37 AM
Glen, i just love hypotheticals......

given your logic why should i pay for the snow to be plowed on a street i don't live on and drive on? why should i pay for that street to paved? why should i pay to operate the sewage plant? after all, maybe i only sh!t once a day and "they" do it twice!

it's called the price of living in a community. caring for your neighbors and the way everyone coexists.

i don't have any school age children. mine are grown. and i am glad to contribute to the public education of the children in my community.

you see, it's not all about me......-Paul

You shouldn't pay for the streets you don't live or drive on, the folks that live and drive on those streets should pay for them. You should pay for the ones that you live and drive on. And that is pretty much how it happens. Motor Fuel taxes are paid on the gas you buy. If you don't buy gas, you don't pay motor fuel tax and thus don't pay for the streets. "In the United States, the fuel tax receipts are often dedicated or hypothecated to transportation projects so that the fuel tax is considered by many a user fee. In other countries, the fuel tax is a source of general revenue." [Wikipedia-take it for what its worth]

You shouldn't pay for the police that protect my neighborhood, but you should pay for the ones that protect your neighborhood. I'm not an expert in sewage plant operation, but I believe that the people who pay a water/sewage bill cover the cost of that, rather than using general tax revenues.

Oh, and if your glad to contribute to public education, then why don't you do that. There is certainly no law against you giving all of your money to the public education system of your choice. After all, more money = better education right? More social programs = no poverty right?


Median U.S. houshold income was a little over $50k in 2008 [U.S Census Bureau]. So, if you really believe in collectivism, you should give anything that you earn over $50k to someone who decided they don't want to work. Correct?

Hew
04-13-2010, 09:21 AM
First, any president duly elected (I'll even put Bush in this category for the purpose of this argument) has the right to appoint his choice to SCOTUS. No hypocrisy there. Wrong. See below.

Second, yes, Obama, or any other president can appoint whomever the he!! he wants to. That's not me, that's the Constitution. Again, no hypocrisy. Whose Constitution are you referring to? Ecuador? Haiti? The United States Constitution says the President gets to nominate judges and that the Senate determines whether they are appointed or not. So no, Obama can't appoint "whoever the he!! he wants to;" he can only nominate "whoever the he!! he wants to." So when/if the Senate Repbublicans, fulfilling their Constitutional duty to provide advice and consent to Obama's nominee, threaten to fillibuster the nominee, and you reflexively squawk like a wet hen about it, try to remember that your boyz Obama, Biden and Hillary did the same damn thing just a few years ago.

**************

dnf777
04-13-2010, 09:37 AM
**************

No hew, there were no filibusters to Bush's nominations. What history books are you reading? Haiti, Ecuador?
And the Constitution states that the president shall nominate, and with the advice and consent of congress, appoint judges to the SC. We both had semantic infractions there, but the point stands. He who wins elections, get to fill vacancies on the court.

THAT is probably the most important and influential power the POTUS wields, and why elections matter.

captainjack
04-13-2010, 09:57 AM
Just for the record Article II Section 2 of the United States Constitution:

"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

Buzz
04-13-2010, 10:05 AM
How in the World did all those people make it for the first 164 years of our Nations existance. Oh, maybe it was that they took the personal initiative to not spend every cent they had on stuff they couldn't afford and didn't need. Maybe they set a bit aside for and took personal responsibility for their own retirement. What a wierd thing to do, take personal responsibility!




The elderly were dirt poor, that's how they made it.

Buzz
04-13-2010, 10:09 AM
You shouldn't pay for the streets you don't live or drive on, the folks that live and drive on those streets should pay for them. You should pay for the ones that you live and drive on. And that is pretty much how it happens. Motor Fuel taxes are paid on the gas you buy. If you don't buy gas, you don't pay motor fuel tax and thus don't pay for the streets. "In the United States, the fuel tax receipts are often dedicated or hypothecated to transportation projects so that the fuel tax is considered by many a user fee. In other countries, the fuel tax is a source of general revenue." [Wikipedia-take it for what its worth]



How do you think the interstate highways going through states like South Dakota, North Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, etc. get paid for? Do you think that the gas used by people driving on them pay for them? I'm going to stick my neck out and say that there isn't enough traffic on them to pay for them out of taxes on the gas burned by vehicles driving on them.

huntinman
04-13-2010, 10:33 AM
probably never again in our lifetime...I think that politics entered in the SCOTUS process with Bork, intensified with Clarence Thomas, and got downright ugly with Alito....how much worse can it get ? I think we are about to find out :(

Bon, I don't think there is any way the R's will be as vitriolic and hateful over Obama's nominee as the D's usually are. Even the wise Latina woman sailed through practically unscathed... The D's know how to play rough and tumble politics. Most of the R's are to polite to stoop to the level of attacks such as Kennedy, and others have done...

dnf777
04-13-2010, 10:35 AM
Bon, I don't think there is any way the R's will be as vitriolic and hateful over Obama's nominee as the D's usually are. Even the wise Latina woman sailed through practically unscathed... The D's know how to play rough and tumble politics. Most of the R's are to polite to stoop to the level of attacks such as Kennedy, and others have done...

Whaaat? this is obviously a matter of perspective.
Bush's own party shot Myers out of the water.
The dems gave Bush his two Scalito and Roberts nominees a relativley easy pass.

captainjack
04-13-2010, 10:44 AM
How do you think the interstate highways going through states like South Dakota, North Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, etc. get paid for? Do you think that the gas used by people driving on them pay for them? I'm going to stick my neck out and say that there isn't enough traffic on them to pay for them out of taxes on the gas burned by vehicles driving on them.


Why don't you look it up and tell me? For many things that are interstate, such as interstate highways, tax funds are distributed based on an areas population, quantity of road miles, etc.

YardleyLabs
04-13-2010, 10:54 AM
I believe "advice and consent" implies makes it clear that the Denate may also withhold its consent. By tradition, the Senate has confirmed nominees without regard to ideology as long as they were basically qualified. The first big ideological dispute over an appointment was not with Bork, as Conservatives contend, but with Abe Fortas, who was nominated to fill the Chief Justice slot vacated by Warren. Fortas was already an Associate Justice, but his appointment as Chief was stopped by a filibuster by Republicans and a small group of southern Democrats. The effect of this filibuster was to prevent Fortas' promotion and to also block the nomination of Thornberry, who had been nominated as an Associate Justice to replace Fortas.

As a consequence, Nixon inherited a Supreme Court vacancy that he filled with Burger. Nixon then sought to pay back the southern Democrats who were key to his southern strategy by nominating a couple of southern conservatives with segregationist backgrounds. Both were rejected by bi-partisan majorities, after which Nixon appointed Harry Blackburn.

Bork was rejected -- not filibustered -- following his appointment by Reagan. The vote was not even close, with 58 Senators, including six Republicans, voting against. Opposition to Bork stemmed from both ideological opposition to his track record on legal issues and political objections to the role he played in Nixon's termination of the special prosecutor in a desperate attempt to prevent impeachment.

After the embarrassment of having his next nominee, Douglas Ginsburg, admit to smoking marijuana, Reagan next nominated Anthony Kennedy who was approved without dissent (97-0). When Bush was presented with two opportunities to appoint Supreme Court Justices, they were treated with kid gloves, relatively speaking, despite extreme ideological positions. In both cases, Democrats were positioned to deny the nominations. Instead, both Alito and Roberts were approved with a 58-42 bi-partisan vote for Alito and a 95-2 vote for Roberts. Thus, the Fortas nomination remains the only one in history that has been stopped by filibuster.

My personal hope is that Obama will use this opportunity to nominate a thoroughly qualified candidate who is at least as "liberal" as the Republican Justice that is being replaced. Unlike Alito, Roberts and Thomas, Stevens was never an ideologue judicially. His identification as a "liberal" remains somewhat ironic since he was generally viewed as a moderate conservative wen he joined the Court and there is nothing to suggest that he moved to the left over time. If Republicans choose the filibuster the nomination, which I do not expect, I would respond with another similar candidate immediately

Gerry Clinchy
04-13-2010, 10:58 AM
No hew, there were no filibusters to Bush's nominations.

I believe Hew said those Senators voted in favor of the filibuster. He did not say that the vote for the filibuster was successful. So, you could both be correct in what you are saying.


If so, are you aware that New York is a net exporter of tax dollars? Taxes from NYC pay for a large share of the public services received in the suburbs and upstate (not to mention the fact that it also pays for their water supplies throuh a quirk of history). New Yor also is a big contributor to the rest of the country's tax revenues, which far outweigh the Federal aid it receives.

Since NYC is broke, maybe they'd be better off keeping their tax money at home, instead of funnelling it through Fed bureaucracy to get it back (less "handling" fee) as Federal aid? And we'd save a lot of money in DC if those paper-pushers didn't have to be paid?


OK, don't pay for my kids education.

There are very few older people who would reject the idea of paying any school taxes at all. Clearly, educating the next generation can have a positive impact on the lives of everyone in a "community". However, since those older people are paying those taxes, then they do have a right to input in how their money is being used. Remember the phrase, "The older I get, the smarter my parents got." When you have continued to pay school taxes for 20 years or more after your kids are out of school, your perspective may change.

Yesterday's hippies being today's righties? I don't think any more so than any other generation. Some of them are still hippies :-) or at least subscribe to a hippie-type philosophy.

Hew
04-13-2010, 11:09 AM
I believe "advice and consent" implies makes it clear that the Denate may also withhold its consent. By tradition, the Senate has confirmed nominees without regard to ideology as long as they were basically qualified. The first big ideological dispute over an appointment was not with Bork, as Conservatives contend, but with Abe Fortas, who was nominated to fill the Chief Justice slot vacated by Warren. Fortas was already an Associate Justice, but his appointment as Chief was stopped by a filibuster by Republicans and a small group of southern Democrats.
I wouldn't necessarily characterize 19 Democrat Senators siding with the fillibuster as a "small group." The fillibuster of Fortas was generally bi-partisan in the political sense (Democrat/Republican). Moreover, the fight over Fortas lasted just a few days and it lacked the nastiness and incivility of the Bork and Thomas confirmation hearings.

captainjack
04-13-2010, 11:11 AM
The elderly were dirt poor, that's how they made it.

What is your source? Do you have any facts to back up that statement?

Assuming that you are correct, there is nothing wrong with being poor.

My parents were poor, my parents parents were poor, their parents parents were poor. But this is for sure, not you or anyone else paid their way. They had a work ethic and sense of personal responsibility that everyone should have. And before you Social Security nuts say "well they took social security didn't they". The answer is that they paid in much more than they ever received.

My father's only personal property was a pocket knife, a wedding ring, and a wrist watch. My mother had a wrist watch, a wedding ring, and a couple of pairs of earings. None of these items very expensive. The rest of what they owned was furniture, dishes, lawn equipment, etc.

There were no fishing poles, no golf clubs, no shot guns, no club memberships, no magazine subscriptions, no nights out to dinner, no going to the movies, no going on vacation. They didn't throw out the old bottle of ketchup until they turned it upside down on the new bottle and every drip, drop, was in the new bottle.

They spent what little money they EARNED providing for their children. A decent home, clean and servicable clothes, nurishing food, and love.

They never complained and they never asked why!

So don't ask me to fund any of your social programs until every single American has made those same sacrifices for their families that my parents made for ours.

BTW, all of their kids are now able to afford many of the things that they couldn't

Hew
04-13-2010, 11:13 AM
I believe Hew said those Senators voted in favor of the filibuster. He did not say that the vote for the filibuster was successful.
You've got more patience than me. I accepted the often-disingenous nature of his rhetoric long ago so I didn't even bother to try to correct his intentional mischaracterization of what I wrote. But thanks anyway.

dnf777
04-13-2010, 11:24 AM
You've got more patience than me. I accepted the often-disingenous nature of his rhetoric long ago so I didn't even bother to try to correct his intentional mischaracterization of what I wrote. But thanks anyway.

right back at ya. I never said nobody VOTED for filibuster, so we're both playing games here. Fact is, senators know exactly what the vote count is, and if they know that no filibuster is possible, they will vote 'yeah' as a posturing maneuver, knowing full well, it is symbolic only. You know that stuff goes on. Bottom line is, as I've said I think four times now, is the man who wins the oval office, get his picks of judges, with the advice and consent of the senate, in the vast overwhelming majority of cases. I would hope that Obama picks someone to balance Scalito and Roberts, and if not, let it be Wayne LaPierre. ;-)

BonMallari
04-13-2010, 12:01 PM
. Instead, both Alito and Roberts were approved with a 58-42 bi-partisan vote for Alito and a 95-2 vote for Roberts. Thus, the Fortas nomination remains the only one in history that has been stopped by filibuster.

My personal hope is that Obama will use this opportunity to nominate a thoroughly qualified candidate who is at least as "liberal" as the Republican Justice that is being replaced. Unlike Alito, Roberts and Thomas, Stevens was never an ideologue judicially. His identification as a "liberal" remains somewhat ironic since he was generally viewed as a moderate conservative wen he joined the Court and there is nothing to suggest that he moved to the left over time. If Republicans choose the filibuster the nomination, which I do not expect, I would respond with another similar candidate immediately

Not quite right, Justice Roberts vote was 78-22, all 22 NO votes were cast by Democrats..the 95-2 vote you refer to might have been for Chief Justice, and of course we know who cast one of the two NO votes ;)

http://www.c-span.org/congress/roberts_senate.asp

ducknwork
04-13-2010, 12:01 PM
No ducknwork, that doesn't sound silly at all. Here is a little history lesson for you. Evidently they don't teach history now days.

The Social Security Act was signed by FDR on 8/14/35. Taxes were collected for the first time in January 1937 and the first one-time, lump-sum payments were made that same month. Regular ongoing monthly benefits started in January 1940. http://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html

How in the World did all those people make it for the first 164 years of our Nations existance. Oh, maybe it was that they took the personal initiative to not spend every cent they had on stuff they couldn't afford and didn't need. Maybe they set a bit aside for and took personal responsibility for their own retirement. What a wierd thing to do, take personal responsibility!

Maybe you should change your handle from ducknwork to ducknlookforahandout

Thanks for the history lesson.:rolleyes:

Great. Stop taking money from all of our paychecks and let all of the elderly that are currently dependent on SS for survival die off. Are you OK with that?

How did people make it for 164 years? I suspect that it wasn't quite as expensive to live back then. (relatively speaking, of course) There are plenty of people who have set aside money to fund the rest of their lives, but costs are out of hand. Here is an example for you. A year and a half ago, my monthly water bill was around $30. We were forced by our town to tap on to the sewer lines that were installed, raising our water and sewer bill to $72. My septic tank was fine, but they were going to charge me for sewer regardless of whether I tapped on or not. Might as well get what I pay for, right? Then, about 6 months ago, rates went up. My bill has been about $100 since then. I received the bill for last month and it is $132. My usage has not changed. Now, affording water isn't a problem for me personally, but what would a $100 increase in monthly expenses (that cannot be avoided) do to someone on a fixed income? Let's not even get into food prices...or medicine...or electricity...A couple hundred years ago, this wasn't an issue.

No need to preach to me about personal responsibility and handouts. It's obvious that you know next to nothing about me if you attack me on that front, captainjackmehov.

BTW, nobody is paying for my kids education. They aren't in school yet and we are seriously considering a private school anyway. But don't worry, I'll still be paying for yours!;)

captainjack
04-13-2010, 01:01 PM
...No need to preach to me about personal responsibility and handouts. It's obvious that you know next to nothing about me if you attack me on that front, captainjackmehov.

BTW, nobody is paying for my kids education. They aren't in school yet and we are seriously considering a private school anyway. But don't worry, I'll still be paying for yours!;)

I didn't know anything about you, and still don't. I do know that so people, maybe you included, can afford private school for their kids, and when their water bill triples, it doesn't affect their discretionary spending. So that makes them the worst kind of liberal. They have enough money that even after paying higher taxes because others don't want to pull there own weight, they can still send your kids to private school, play dog games, etc.

The problem is that they (The Liberal Elite) want the folks who don't have quiet so much, to pull their kids out of the private schools and sell their dogs so that they (The Liberal Elite) can feel better about themselves. The Liberal Elite???

I'll never understand the mentality of folks like that. Maybe they feel guilty for they way they or their family got to where they are socioeconomically, I just don't know.

And, speaking for those of us that are not as well off. We are fine with that! Nobody owes us anything. We are entitled only to the pursuit of happiness, no more. Quit trying to make it better for us.

BTW, I'm certain that you aren't paying for my kids education.

menmon
04-13-2010, 02:15 PM
[QUOTE]Over the years, that generation has become extreme right and still anti-government. They want all the goods and services of government but don't want to meet any obligation in return./QUOTE]

Horse manure
The extreme right wants government to spend less and have less social programs and stay they hell out of their business. But wants to pay a fair tax.

Liberal obligations are impossible to meet unless you print more money and steal from the rich,,,then they can experience their utopia for a few months until reality comes home to roost.

Wake up man, you need to relieve yourself and not know it.

menmon
04-13-2010, 02:20 PM
The orginal post says it all. Things are tough now and everyone vents on the internet. They get energized by cable news that gives them someone to blame.

A man told me a few days ago something that made a lot of sense:

I can not control the governments actions, so I focus on what I can control.

Buzz
04-13-2010, 02:27 PM
I didn't know anything about you, and still don't. I do know that so people, maybe you included, can afford private school for their kids, and when their water bill triples, it doesn't affect their discretionary spending. So that makes them the worst kind of liberal. They have enough money that even after paying higher taxes because others don't want to pull there own weight, they can still send your kids to private school, play dog games, etc.

The problem is that they (The Liberal Elite) want the folks who don't have quiet so much, to pull their kids out of the private schools and sell their dogs so that they (The Liberal Elite) can feel better about themselves. The Liberal Elite???

I'll never understand the mentality of folks like that. Maybe they feel guilty for they way they or their family got to where they are socioeconomically, I just don't know.

And, speaking for those of us that are not as well off. We are fine with that! Nobody owes us anything. We are entitled only to the pursuit of happiness, no more. Quit trying to make it better for us.

BTW, I'm certain that you aren't paying for my kids education.

That is some pretty entertaining stuff right there!

captainjack
04-13-2010, 02:28 PM
The orginal post says it all. Things are tough now and everyone vents on the internet. They get energized by cable news that gives them someone to blame.

A man told me a few days ago something that made a lot of sense:

I can not control the governments actions, so I focus on what I can control.

That man is rather appathetic, probably thinks his vote wouldn't matter, and likely stays home on election day. He probably sleeps good at night and doesn't have ulcers though!

Let's see if he can maintain that attitude when they come to take his guns and other liberties away.

captainjack
04-13-2010, 02:31 PM
That is some pretty entertaining stuff right there!

Thanks Buzz, glad you are enjoying!

Buzz
04-13-2010, 02:40 PM
Thanks Buzz, glad you are enjoying!

You're welcome!

Duck, just in case you missed my post on the other thread:

http://retrievertraining.net/forums/showpost.php?p=598704&postcount=41


Enjoy!

menmon
04-13-2010, 02:45 PM
That man is rather appathetic, probably thinks his vote wouldn't matter, and likely stays home on election day. He probably sleeps good at night and doesn't have ulcers though!

Let's see if he can maintain that attitude when they come to take his guns and other liberties away.

Actually he votes but then moves on...that is all we can do is vote and if you live in Texas as I do, a vote for a democrat is a waste of time.

Buzz
04-13-2010, 02:48 PM
Actually he votes but then moves on...that is all we can do is vote and if you live in Texas as I do, a vote for a democrat is a waste of time.

Yea, but the winter dog training isn't too bad!;-)

menmon
04-13-2010, 02:52 PM
Yea, but the winter dog training isn't too bad!;-)

That's right!

captainjack
04-13-2010, 03:05 PM
Actually he votes but then moves on...that is all we can do is vote and if you live in Texas as I do, a vote for a democrat is a waste of time.

Sounds like my kind of place!

ducknwork
04-13-2010, 03:25 PM
That is some pretty entertaining stuff right there!


You're welcome!

Duck, just in case you missed my post on the other thread:

http://retrievertraining.net/forums/showpost.php?p=598704&postcount=41


Enjoy!

Yes, I am getting a good laugh over here...I can see where Dave could be seen as a lib;), but ME? Buzz, I think we need to revive the legalize pot thread. I think we have another user on the POTUS...:o

CapnCrunch, you're striking out, bud...

Things I'm not:

Liberal
Well Off
Dog games player
Elite
Guilt ridden

menmon
04-13-2010, 03:26 PM
Sounds like my kind of place!

No...we don't need anymore of your kind.

I hear the Eskimo Bimbo is looking to increase the population of Alaska though

captainjack
04-13-2010, 03:31 PM
No...we don't need anymore of your kind.

I hear the Eskimo Bimbo is looking to increase the population of Alaska though

Be nice. Alaska is in good hands. No libs there.

menmon
04-13-2010, 03:40 PM
Be nice. Alaska is in good hands. No libs there.

Your right that was tacky of me...Eskimo are good people!

captainjack
04-13-2010, 03:41 PM
CapnCrunch, you're striking out, bud...

Things I'm not:

Liberal
Well Off
Dog games player
Elite
Guilt ridden

Not saying you, just saying some folks, maybe you.

But..
Your opinions expressed here appear liberal to me, (and BUZZ as well I guess). Maybe I don't know what a liberal is. Or, maybe you don't?
Well off is a relative term, but where I come from, only the well off send their kids to private school,
and your tone is elitest for sure.

captainjack
04-13-2010, 03:43 PM
Your right that was tacky of me...Eskimo are good people!

Yea, some on here may even say you were being Racist!

ducknwork
04-13-2010, 03:44 PM
This gets more hilarious by the minute...too bad I have to get back to my blue collar job...

Hey, while I'm gone, make me a list of all the liberal sounding things I have said. Go ahead and make a list of all the elitist sounding things I have said. Oh, and make me a drink while your at it, boy....;):o


















:-P

menmon
04-13-2010, 04:11 PM
I guess having three dogs in training makes me an elitist!

I thought it just made me stupid

BonMallari
04-13-2010, 04:35 PM
Not saying you, just saying some folks, maybe you.

But..
Your opinions expressed here appear liberal to me, (and BUZZ as well I guess). Maybe I don't know what a liberal is. Or, maybe you don't?
Well off is a relative term, but where I come from, only the well off send their kids to private school,
and your tone is elitest for sure.

I can almost guarantee Ducknwork is NOT a liberal, and as much as I dislike labeling people, Buzz is more center left, based only on the posts that I have read....

dnf777
04-14-2010, 10:44 AM
I can almost guarantee Ducknwork is NOT a liberal, and as much as I dislike labeling people, Buzz is more center left, based only on the posts that I have read....

There were a few threads a while back about one's views, and one's profession and trade. I thought they showed most here are more alike than different. I was especially impressed with the entrpreneurship that abounds here. I suspect most hang out here because its more fun to disagree than to agree most of the time. Certainly works the cobwebs out anyway. I've even agreed with Hew a few times....but won't ever admit it. oops

Happy hump-day everyone....

pat addis
04-14-2010, 11:17 AM
I guess having three dogs in training makes me an elitist!

I thought it just made me stupid

it means you are rich or used to be.