Bush=Hitler IS Getting More Than Old

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Annie, Mar 2, 2005.

  1. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    smacks of anti-Semitism and the ADL is finally responding:

    http://www.adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/4660_52.htm

     
  2. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    LOL Byrd gets smacked twice!

    http://wizbangblog.com/archives/005236.php

    Many links!

    and if that wasn't enough, here's a post that echoes Mark Antony in Julius Caesar!

    http://www.qando.net/Details.aspx?Entry=1279

     
  3. fuzzykitten99
    Offline

    fuzzykitten99 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,965
    Thanks Received:
    199
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    You'll have to check the Marauder's Map...
    Ratings:
    +199
    if a republican/conservative said anything like this, the liberals would be drooling over it and crying off with his/her head!
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. Deornwulf
    Offline

    Deornwulf Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    Messages:
    153
    Thanks Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +28
    Hearing this particular liberal screed puts me in this frame of mind - :chains:
     
  5. SmarterThanYou
    Online

    SmarterThanYou Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Despite all the bruhaha about bush=hitler comparisons(kind of absurd actually) I do have to agree with Byrd about the aggressiveness put forth by the republicans concerning these last 10 nominees.

    Republicans blocked more than 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominees, Democrats have filibustered only 10 Bush nominations and have done so openly - not anonymously and without hearings or votes, as Republicans did with Clinton's nominees.

    As Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) has noted, President Clinton's consultation with him as then-ranking member of the Judiciary Committee on Supreme Court nominations made a world of difference, and the confirmations of Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer were models of cooperation, yet President Bush, without reaching across the aisle, and just before Christmas Eve, summarily renominates 20 of his most controversial nominees, and he and Republican leaders in the Senate again speak ominously about flattening the Senate with their "nuclear option" to ensure that each and every judicial nominee is confirmed.

    Originally, after Republicans gained control of the Senate in the 1994 elections and Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch assumed control of the Judiciary Committee, the rule regarding judicial nominees was this: If a single senator from a nominee's home state objected to (or "blue-slipped") a nomination, it was dead. This rule made it easy for Republicans to obstruct Clinton's nominees.

    But in 2001, when a Republican became president, Hatch suddenly reversed course and decided that it should take objections from both home-state senators to block a nominee. That made it harder for Democrats to obstruct George W. Bush's nominees.

    In early 2003 Hatch went even further: Senatorial objections were merely advisory, he said. Even if both senators objected to a nomination, it could still go to the floor for a vote.

    Finally, a few weeks later, yet another barrier was torn down: Hatch did away with "Rule IV," which states that at least one member of the minority has to agree in order to end discussion about a nomination and move it out of committee.

    So, to me anyway, the republicans have shown a serious tendency to do away with any and all opposition via legal means to force through their agenda. This would be why theres a GOP=nazi regime type of statement.

    Just my opinion anyway.
     
  6. musicman
    Offline

    musicman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    5,171
    Thanks Received:
    533
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +533
    Ah, yes - Ginsburg and Breyer. That "spirit of co-operation" has done wonders for the court, hasn't it? Tell me, SmarterThanUs, what do you think of the latest actions of our Supreme Court? Should U.S. law be subject to a "global test"? Should the judiciary continue to gangster its will on the American populace?

    If Senate rules are being changed, I say it's about damned time!
     
  7. SmarterThanYou
    Online

    SmarterThanYou Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    right off hand I don't remember WHICH justice is the outspoken one on 'global' BS, but I think its wrong. we're not a one world government and I certainly hope that it never comes to that.

    This issue you have raised though, isn't the same as the one with the rules changes and filibusters. while it deals with judicial nominees, the USSC isn't a seat being nominated for yet. Now, If theres a nominee that I think is a good selection for the USSC and not an extremist from either side, then i'm all for it. I just happen to think that most of the renominated people will destroy personal freedom, not protect it.
     
  8. musicman
    Offline

    musicman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    5,171
    Thanks Received:
    533
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +533
    Well, I won't say he's the only one, but Breyer is a spectacular example. His statement to the WTO, "The U.S. Constitution will have to evolve in order to fit with the documents of other nations", constitutes grounds for impeachment all by itself, I think.

    And, as far as Senate rules changes, I don't see how they could yield a more concerted attack on individual freedoms than is emanating from our juduciary as we speak. To render the will of the people irrelevant, as a matter of course and in the routine exercise of one's job, is pretty serious abuse. If the goal is to restore rightful power to the people, I'm willing to keep an open mind.
     
  9. insein
    Offline

    insein Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    6,096
    Thanks Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Philadelphia, Amazing huh...
    Ratings:
    +356
    I find it ironic that as a former head Klansmen, Byrd uses his hero, Adolf, as a label for his enemies. Kind of defeats the purpose of being a racist wouldnt you think? :wine: :lame2:
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. theim
    Offline

    theim Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,628
    Thanks Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Madison, WI
    Ratings:
    +234
    The party with the KKK member is the party fighting for civil rights, and the party that has elevated more blacks to high, prestigious positions is a bunch of racist bigots. I...don't....f'n...get it.
     

Share This Page