|
|
| Re: Food for Thought For Liberals (468809) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 6 of 11 |
||
|
| (469206) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Jul 2 19:11:28 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by AMoreira81 on Thu Jul 2 19:01:13 2009. What rule was changed? Alito was confirmed 58-42 with four Democrats voting for him. |
|
|
| (469207) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Thu Jul 2 19:24:47 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Jul 2 19:11:28 2009. The committee rules were changed. If all of the members of the party that is NOT the majority in the Senate Judiciary committee objected, in the past, the nomination died in committee. |
|
|
| (469208) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Thu Jul 2 19:27:34 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Jul 2 19:11:28 2009. That's not the relevant vote. The relevant vote was in committee, where 10 Republicans voted to advance, and 8 Democrats objected. In the past, that would mean a killed nomination...but the rules were changed mid-game. |
|
|
| (469209) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Thu Jul 2 19:39:05 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by AMoreira81 on Thu Jul 2 19:27:34 2009. That has never been a Senate Judiciary Committee rule. What is your source for this? |
|
|
| (469210) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Thu Jul 2 19:49:00 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by trainsarefun on Thu Jul 2 19:39:05 2009. Click back two posts. |
|
|
| (469211) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Thu Jul 2 19:50:18 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by trainsarefun on Thu Jul 2 19:39:05 2009. The source. But of note is that Alito's nomination broke that rule. |
|
|
| (469212) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Thu Jul 2 20:08:18 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by AMoreira81 on Thu Jul 2 19:49:00 2009. You must understand that Senate Judiciary Committee rules, much like most legislative procedural rules, aren't particularly meaningful. Breaking a committee filibuster can be done by simple majority vote. Moreover, as Judge Bork's nomination to the US Supreme Court showed, even a nomination voted against by all members of the majority and one member of the minority can be reported out of committee. |
|
|
| (469214) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Thu Jul 2 20:21:25 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Fred G on Thu Jul 2 04:37:12 2009. Yes you do. Because I can. You couldn't pass the ethics test or the alcohol screening. |
|
|
| (469216) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Thu Jul 2 20:24:15 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Easy on Thu Jul 2 18:12:53 2009. Why does it matter to you? You don't mind having Jeramiah Wright speak for you, do you? |
|
|
| (469219) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Thu Jul 2 20:41:21 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Train Dude on Thu Jul 2 20:24:15 2009. It matters to me because I'm a moderate Democrat running out of moderate people to choose from. If you mean literally speak for me of course I would mind. If you mean whether or not I agree with his positions, I'm not familiar enough to say. He's definitely more pro-Palestinian than I am. And I wouldn't give Farrakhan a MOTY award although I don't see him as evil. |
|
|
| (469221) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Thu Jul 2 20:56:38 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Train Dude on Thu Jul 2 20:21:25 2009. Ethics?Reporting on a public message board that someone has a current drinking problem that would make them unable to hold a government job is pretty unethical if it's true, and unethical and libelous if it's false. |
|
|
| (469223) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by R PansePCC on Thu Jul 2 21:19:37 2009, in response to Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Train Dude on Wed Jul 1 21:43:14 2009. The National Football League seems to be doing quite well by dividing their wealth. |
|
|
| (469226) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Thu Jul 2 21:20:51 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Easy on Thu Jul 2 20:41:21 2009. So you don't mind Jeramiah Wright speaking for you? |
|
|
| (469228) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Thu Jul 2 21:22:35 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by R PansePCC on Thu Jul 2 21:19:37 2009. The national football league is not the US economy. Perhaps you can't fathom the difference. |
|
|
| (469229) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jul 2 21:25:13 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Easy on Thu Jul 2 18:12:53 2009. But Rush doesn't speak for the "Republicans". It's a free country, Rush can say whatever he wants. It's the Liberals that want it to appear that Rush speaks for "the Republicans". |
|
|
| (469230) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Dan Lawrence on Thu Jul 2 21:30:36 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by AMoreira81 on Thu Jul 2 19:03:46 2009. Which right now is held up in the Maryland Public Service Commission which is beginning to hold hearings to see if it's in the public interest. Stay tuned. |
|
|
| (469231) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Thu Jul 2 21:30:56 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jul 2 21:25:13 2009. No, it's not just liberals. All partisan Democrats, whether liberal, moderate, or conservative would want Rush to be seen as the head of the Republican Party because it benefits all Democrats, not just the liberal ones.I agree that it is a free country. And I agree that he doesn't speak for the Party, but the appearance that he doesn't wasn't manufactured solely by Democrats. But for the part that was, Obama really had a lot to do with that. |
|
|
| (469232) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jul 2 21:33:26 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Easy on Thu Jul 2 21:30:56 2009. No, it's not just liberals. All partisan Democrats, whether liberal, moderate, or conservative would want Rush to be seen as the head of the Republican Party because it benefits all Democrats, not just the liberal ones.I agree completely, but I usually get yelled at here if I say "Democrats". I agree that it is a free country. And I agree that he doesn't speak for the Party, but the appearance that he doesn't wasn't manufactured solely by Democrats. But for the part that was, Obama really had a lot to do with that. We totally agree here. |
|
|
| (469233) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Thu Jul 2 21:33:42 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Train Dude on Thu Jul 2 21:20:51 2009. What are you babbling about? |
|
|
| (469235) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Thu Jul 2 21:35:41 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Train Dude on Thu Jul 2 21:20:51 2009. I'm not babbling. You have Jeramiah Wright and Al Sharpton speaking for you - don't you? |
|
|
| (469237) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Thu Jul 2 21:38:10 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jul 2 21:33:26 2009. Where I think that we disagree is that I think that Rush has a very large following that is influential within the Republican Party. Rush is an entertainer, but many see him as more. You and Luch are underestimating him. |
|
|
| (469238) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Thu Jul 2 21:41:51 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Train Dude on Thu Jul 2 21:35:41 2009. Why would you think that? |
|
|
| (469239) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by R PansePCC on Thu Jul 2 21:42:21 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Train Dude on Thu Jul 2 21:22:35 2009. I never said it was. I was just providing an example that shows that in some cases you can increase your wealth by dividing it. |
|
|
| (469240) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Thu Jul 2 21:44:17 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Easy on Thu Jul 2 21:41:51 2009. For the same reason that you and the moron minions here insist that Rush Limbaugh speaks for republicans or Conservatives. |
|
|
| (469241) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Thu Jul 2 21:47:02 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by R PansePCC on Thu Jul 2 21:42:21 2009. Your example is meaningless. The NFL is one organization in which there is 100% employment. If you don't like revenue sharing - that's another story but it is not even remotely relevent to this discussion. |
|
|
| (469242) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Thu Jul 2 21:50:38 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Train Dude on Thu Jul 2 21:35:41 2009. That's a tit-for-tat-spiteful but inaccurate comparison. Let's start with the fact that Republican congressmen and even the head of the RNC have apologized for remarks made about Rush Limbaugh. We've not seen either Revs Wright or Sharpton have that kind of clout with the Democrats.Limbaugh is an entertainer yes, but a lot of fringe types take it as gospel. I included him for ballbusting value. Gingrich and Cheney have lately been the face of the GOP though. your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (469243) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Thu Jul 2 21:54:55 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jul 2 08:13:41 2009. Yes, it is funny when he thinks a communist society will do him better than a capitalistic one. He can always move to China.Wow! I didn't realize that pointing out how unregulated Wall St excesses led to systemic financial failure and a subsequent bailout by the US Treasury made one a communist Mr. McCarthy. And here I was thinking that privatized gains, socialized losses and corporate entities that are "too big to fail" were all anti-capitalist features. |
|
|
| (469246) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Thu Jul 2 21:58:25 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by LuchAAA on Thu Jul 2 12:36:33 2009. Those minority voters only revised their voting habits, as in actually going out to vote, not their affiliation or verbal choice if asked.your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (469247) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Thu Jul 2 22:01:15 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by LuchAAA on Thu Jul 2 12:33:08 2009. When does that 2010 schedulue come out?Ask the IRS. |
|
|
| (469248) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Thu Jul 2 22:01:20 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Fred G on Thu Jul 2 21:50:38 2009. Nonsense fred. Reverend Wright almost derailed barack obama and obama had to disavow Wright's statements. |
|
|
| (469250) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Thu Jul 2 22:03:21 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by shiznit1987 on Thu Jul 2 15:19:19 2009. Socialism doesn't really work long term as an economic system, nothing hateful about that view.So please explain which Obama proposals and/or actions would lead you to believe that he is trying to bring a socialist economic system to the US. |
|
|
| (469252) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Thu Jul 2 22:05:21 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jul 2 10:31:39 2009. Again, Rush is not a politician. He is not an elected official.Neither was Karl Marx. |
|
|
| (469253) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Thu Jul 2 22:06:28 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by SMAZ on Thu Jul 2 22:03:21 2009. Oh please! You really are not serious, are you? |
|
|
| (469254) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Thu Jul 2 22:07:09 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by LuchAAA on Thu Jul 2 12:36:33 2009. 96% of black voters voted for Obama which is a few percentage points higher than normal and 13% of the voters were black which is a couple of points higher than last time, but it was white voters that elected Obama. More whites voted for Obama than for any Democrat in over 30 years. |
|
|
| (469255) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Thu Jul 2 22:08:30 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by SMAZ on Thu Jul 2 22:05:21 2009. Again, you don't know what you are taking about. Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Karl Marx was not - Groucho was. |
|
|
| (469256) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Thu Jul 2 22:08:38 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jul 2 17:38:23 2009. However, he appears to be extremely influential in getting the left riled up.Rush is the Left's best friend. |
|
|
| (469257) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Thu Jul 2 22:11:50 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Train Dude on Thu Jul 2 20:24:15 2009. You don't mind having Jeramiah Wright speak for you, do you?I didn't realize that Rev. Wright reaches millions of listeners a day on his radio show. What station is he on? |
|
|
| (469258) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by R PansePCC on Thu Jul 2 22:15:00 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Train Dude on Thu Jul 2 21:47:02 2009. It's not relevant to you because it contradicts the statement that you can't increase wealth by dividing it. The NFL is a money making machine that shares the wealth. Even a plumber would know this. LOL :-) |
|
|
| (469259) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Thu Jul 2 22:18:16 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by SMAZ on Thu Jul 2 22:11:50 2009. I don't know - why don't you tell us? |
|
|
| (469260) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Thu Jul 2 22:19:34 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Train Dude on Thu Jul 2 22:01:20 2009. Even if Wright really did almost derail Barack's campaign, he was never seen as a Democratic luminary such as Limbaugh is seen.your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (469261) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Thu Jul 2 22:19:40 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jul 2 10:33:07 2009. And what do you base this 4-8% on, or is that totally pulled out of your rear?I didn't completely pull it out of my rear. When the popular Colin Powell was mentioned as a potential Presidential candidate in 2000, polling showed that he would have attracted 30-35% of the black vote. Since Condi and the GOP were much less popular in 2008 then Powell and his party were in 2000, my guess is that she would have attracted half of that against a white Democrat. |
|
|
| (469262) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Thu Jul 2 22:20:51 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by R PansePCC on Thu Jul 2 22:15:00 2009. Agian, you are seriously confused. The NFL is not a government. The NFL is not taxing the salaries of the star players and giving it to the lesser known players or players who refuse to work. You are losing credibility by trying to make this extremely poor analogy work. |
|
|
| (469263) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Thu Jul 2 22:22:58 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by LuchAAA on Thu Jul 2 12:36:33 2009. This had to help him tremendously in Indiana(think Gary, Ind), Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina.It may have put him over the top in IN and NC but his race probably hurt him in MO and it didn't make a difference in VA and FL. The biggest difference in FL was the Cuban flip. Either way he would have still won the Electoral College in a landslide. |
|
|
| (469264) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Thu Jul 2 22:23:03 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Fred G on Thu Jul 2 22:19:34 2009. Rush Limbaugh is only a Republican "luminary" it tne minds of the mindless left. I know few who listen to him other than liberal who can't seem to get enough of him. |
|
|
| (469265) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Thu Jul 2 22:23:04 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Train Dude on Thu Jul 2 22:08:30 2009. We may have to think about this a bit. your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (469266) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Thu Jul 2 22:24:18 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Fred G on Thu Jul 2 22:23:04 2009. Hey it's your stream of consciousness. Waste it any way you see fit. |
|
|
| (469267) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Thu Jul 2 22:25:57 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Easy on Thu Jul 2 22:07:09 2009. 96% of black voters voted for Obama which is a few percentage points higher than normal and 13% of the voters were black which is a couple of points higher than last time, but it was white voters that elected Obama. More whites voted for Obama than for any Democrat in over 30 years.Exactly. Obama even carried 43% of the RURAL VOTE! A Republican cannot win a national election by getting only 56-57% of people in rural areas and this carried over in the Congressional elections where the Dems pretty much ran the table for the second straight cycle. |
|
|
| (469268) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Thu Jul 2 22:27:27 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Train Dude on Thu Jul 2 22:23:03 2009. Rush caters to the right like Al Franken cater to the left. What is most dangerous right now is that the latter now holds a Senate seat. |
|
|
| (469269) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Thu Jul 2 22:27:52 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Train Dude on Thu Jul 2 22:23:03 2009. You don't know the people that listen to Rush because you live in NYC and travel in elite circles. I know lots of Rush fans. |
|
|
| (469270) | |
Re: Food for Thought For Liberals |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Thu Jul 2 22:29:59 2009, in response to Re: Food for Thought For Liberals, posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Thu Jul 2 22:27:27 2009. I don't see either one as dangerous, but you make a good point about those that say that Rush isn't influential because he's an entertainer. If an entertainer like Al Franken can win a Senate seat Rush could easily win one. |
|
|
|
Page 6 of 11 |
||