Glenn Beck?

Beck converted to Mormon when He Remarried. It's in His Bio. Easily accessible.

You seem to make Mormons into the bogyman. Grow up. Arizona has an old history with LDS, be careful who you antagonize. Remember to check in your closet and under your bed tonight.

Can You clean up your own state? How many decades must you stand by while Peabody rapes the Navajo's?
Peabody Energy's Plan to Reopen Black Mesa Coal Mine Threatens
Navajo and Hopi Communities, Religious Freedom,
Water Supplies, and Wildlife; Will Worsen Global Warming

Diverse Coalition of Tribal and Conservation Groups Appeal
Peabody's Illegal Permit for Black Mesa Coal Mine

BLACK MESA, Ariz.— In the waning days of the Bush administration, the Office of Surface Mining hurriedly issued a “Life-of-Mine” permit allowing Peabody Energy to reopen the controversial Black Mesa coal mine in northeastern Arizona. This permit allows Peabody Energy to consolidate the Black Mesa and Kayenta mines into a massive, 65,000-acre mine complex. A diverse coalition of tribal and conservation groups yesterday appealed the permit, citing concerns about air and water pollution, global warming, ground water depletion, and impacts to religious freedom.

“This Life of Mine permit will have a devastating effect on the cultural survival of the future generations of both Navajo and Hopi,” said Anthony Lee, president of the Dine Hataalii (medicine man) Association. “The natural elements of light, water, air, and earth are interconnected. If one of these elements is disturbed or abused, the well-being and wholeness of the Navajo people and all life forms will be in disharmony and serious imbalances will occur, such as is the case with global warming.”

Yesterday’s appeal of the December 22, 2008 issuance of a permit cites procedural and substantive violations of several laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act and the Surface Mining Reclamation Control Act.

“As Navajo and Hopi community members, we were denied an extension of the commenting period, we were denied informal conference meetings, we were denied public hearings, we were even denied the ability to see Peabody’s revised permit application,” said Enei Begaye, Black Mesa Water Coalition director. “This process has only valued corporate interests rather those who would be most impacted by this mining complex.”

Peabody ’s coal mining operations on Black Mesa have for more than 35 years been dependent on a sole source of drinking water for Navajo and Hopi communities. Between 1969 and 2005 Peabody pumped an average of 4,600 acre-feet of water annually from the Navajo Aquifer, resulting in significant damage to community water supplies. Peabody’s permit would allow a continued pumping at approximately 1,200 acre-feet per year.

“Our water has reached irreversible damage, families face devastating impacts,” said Nicole Horseherder, Navajo citizen and Black Mesa resident. “Our leaders don't realize that the American dream is no longer the big house with the white fence and new car in the drive. The American dream is clean air and pure water and a sustainable economy based on clean technology and renewable energy.”

The permit allows for continued coal mining into the year 2025 and an estimated 670 million tons of coal to be extracted.

“Coal combustion allowed by the mine permit will devastate the surrounding communities and result in massive amounts of greenhouse gas emissions,” said Amy Atwood, senior attorney and public lands energy director at the Center for Biological Diversity, “yet the federal agencies’ analyses flatly ignored the impacts of global warming to endangered species and their habitats.”

“Our value isn’t just money from resources extraction, our value comes from our culture and our relationship with Mother Earth. Black Mesa is the female mountain, coal is her liver, water is her lifeblood, and we need to leave it in the ground,” said Marie Gladue Dine from Black Mesa. “Taking coal out of the earth is a dirty business, and it’s time to move toward a clean energy future that respects indigenous communities and our future generations.”

The diverse coalition of organizations Black Mesa Water Coalition, To Nizhoni Ani, Dine CARE, Dine Hataalii Association, Inc., Dine Alliance, C-Aquifer for Dine, NRDC, the Center for Biological Diversity, and Sierra Club filed an appeal to the U.S. Department of the Interior Office of Hearings and Appeals. The organizations are represented by the Energy Minerals Law Center in Durango, Colorado.

“We have to do everything we can to reverse this Life of Mine permit,” said Bucky Preston, Hopi traditional leader. “Otherwise our future children will be living without water in a devastated land, and they will ask us why we didn’t fight for them.”

Background

The Black Mesa mine closed in 2005 when a court settlement shut down the power plant it fed, the Mojave Generating Station in Laughlin, Nevada, for pollution violations. In issuance of a permit to Peabody, neither the Office of Surface Mining nor Peabody identified a new purchaser or consumer of coal for the mine. In addition, federal agencies’ analysis of the permit failed to adequately consider the impacts of global warming on endangered fish in the Colorado River.

By contributing to global warming-related droughts and pumping more groundwater, permitted mining would exacerbate the effects more than 30 years of Peabody’s groundwater depletion that has drained billions of gallons of water from aquifers. Peabody’s pumping has corresponded to depleted wells and decreased surface flows in area springs and creeks upon which residents and wildlife depend. Despite evidence of continuing aquifer deterioration, the Office of Surface Mining and Peabody seek to continue extracting 1,236 acre-feet of groundwater from the Navajo Aquifer for mining operations over the permit period ending 2025.

For more background information please visit: Black Mesa Water Coalition
 
All three of you did say Beck is a mormon right? I am not really sure and am having a hard time believing it. It may be true though, who knows.
i dont know if he is or isn't, and that isn't the point
whatever he is is between him and God
but you making fun of him for his faith is more telling about you than him

Your thoughts on Scientology? :lol:
 
Intense...seriously...what? You are blaming me for crap going on in this republican run state? Come on.
 
(d)...Can you or Dive Con explain the holy underwear thing? Can you explain their beliefs on blacks prior to 78?

Still being stupid and disingenuous, huh?

So thats a no on you explaining what happened to the mormons and their thoughts on blacks in 78. You wont explain what changed?

Additionally, you wont even talk about the holy underwear?

What about the tablets? Why cant anyone see them...who exactly did see them?

Why would this religion start here in the states. What happened to Smith?

These are honest questions..but you come back with "Still being stupid and disingenuous, huh?"..

No. Now yer being stupid disingenuous AND transparent. You are trying to change the subject and move the goalposts. We see right through it.

You were making fun of the man for his religion. And then you have been trying to play innocent and going "Who, me?" Like Alfred E Neuman. Your best bet all along would have been to say "Damn right I'm making fun of his religion, it's silly".

Instead you come across as a stupid liar that by playing the poor innocent "Well I'm just asking a question, duHUH". And we all see right through you. And we're not going to let you off the hook.

The issue has never been about Mormonism. The issue is you attacking someone for their religion and then acting stupid and falsely innocent.

The fact that this has to be explained to you only makes me start to lean more heavily to the (A) side of things. Yer just stupid.
 
Zona....is Beck still on the air? I thought the liberals through him out on his ear.


Give it time. I really believe he will implode. We will see. I just find it disturbing when people actually believe the tripe coming out of his mouth, but Fox has a lot of idiots. look at their ratings. :lol:
says the idiot that watches PMSNBC

I just googled PMSNBC and its not there. :lol: Why is this? Idiot indeed...:lol:
 
All three of you did say Beck is a mormon right? I am not really sure and am having a hard time believing it. It may be true though, who knows.

Zona....is Beck still on the air? I thought the liberals through him out on his ear.


Give it time. I really believe he will implode. We will see. I just find it disturbing when people actually believe the tripe coming out of his mouth, but Fox has a lot of idiots. look at their ratings. :lol:

:lol: Surely, you jest, Zona...your not that stupid are you?
How is MSNBC treating you these days? :lol:
 
All three of you did say Beck is a mormon right? I am not really sure and am having a hard time believing it. It may be true though, who knows.
i dont know if he is or isn't, and that isn't the point
whatever he is is between him and God
but you making fun of him for his faith is more telling about you than him

Your thoughts on Scientology? :lol:
i have none
 
Give it time. I really believe he will implode. We will see. I just find it disturbing when people actually believe the tripe coming out of his mouth, but Fox has a lot of idiots. look at their ratings. :lol:
says the idiot that watches PMSNBC

I just googled PMSNBC and its not there. :lol: Why is this? Idiot indeed...:lol:
:rofl:
yeah, a moron like you wouldn't understand
 
Still being stupid and disingenuous, huh?

So thats a no on you explaining what happened to the mormons and their thoughts on blacks in 78. You wont explain what changed?

Additionally, you wont even talk about the holy underwear?

What about the tablets? Why cant anyone see them...who exactly did see them?

Why would this religion start here in the states. What happened to Smith?

These are honest questions..but you come back with "Still being stupid and disingenuous, huh?"..

No. Now yer being stupid disingenuous AND transparent. You are trying to change the subject and move the goalposts. We see right through it.

You were making fun of the man for his religion. And then you have been trying to play innocent and going "Who, me?" Like Alfred E Neuman. Your best bet all along would have been to say "Damn right I'm making fun of his religion, it's silly".

Instead you come across as a stupid liar that by playing the poor innocent "Well I'm just asking a question, duHUH". And we all see right through you. And we're not going to let you off the hook.

The issue has never been about Mormonism. The issue is you attacking someone for their religion and then acting stupid and falsely innocent.

The fact that this has to be explained to you only makes me start to lean more heavily to the (A) side of things. Yer just stupid.

Stilll no insight from you on that religion? I dont understand how calling someone a mormon is an insult sir and am asking you specific questions abut it.

Comments? Specific comments about the religion itself? Can you explain where they got a negative stigma?
You did say Beck is a mormon right?
 
Zona....is Beck still on the air? I thought the liberals through him out on his ear.


Give it time. I really believe he will implode. We will see. I just find it disturbing when people actually believe the tripe coming out of his mouth, but Fox has a lot of idiots. look at their ratings. :lol:
says the idiot that watches PMSNBC

I doubt his mommy let's him watch MSNBC, so he must be doing it on the sly. Glenn Beck is blowing all competition away right now, because He is on to something.

Here's a bedtime story children.

The Myth of Daedalus
Legend of the Great Inventor of Athens Who Took Wing With Icarus
© Christopher Minster

Mar 31, 2009
Daedalus invented the wings that his son Icarus used to fly too close to the sun. Do you know the rest of the legend?

Daedalus was born in ancient Athens and was a genius when it came to creating and inventing things. He is best known for the middle part of his legend, in which his son, Icarus, flies too close to the sun and falls to his doom when the wings made by Daedalus melt. There is much more to the legend of Daedalus, however.

The Great Skill of Daedalus
Daedalus was gifted at creating things with his hands, so much so that many thought he had been trained by Athena herself (she was Goddess of handicrafts, among other things). Above all, he was considered an extraordinary sculptor, woodworker and carpenter. Some said that his statues were so good that those who saw them expected them to come to life any second.

Daedalus and Talos
Like many ancient Greeks of legend, Daedalus suffered from pride. He took on his nephew Talos as an apprentice, but Talos proved to be as skilled as his uncle, if not more so. The young man invented a new saw, iron with serrated edges, that he had designed while observing the teeth on the jaw of a serpent. Talos also invented an early compass (the sort used to draw circles) and his fame began to spread.

Daedalus, enraged, murdered Talos. A neighbor saw him burying the body, however, and Daedalus was forced to flee to Crete, where his reputation as a gifted carpenter preceded him.

Daedalus and Minos
King Minos was ruler of Crete, and he welcomed Daedalus. At just that time, Minos angered Poseidon by sacrificing the second-best bull in his stable to the sea lord. Poseidon retaliated by making Pasiphaë, Minos’ wife, fall in love with the beautiful bull that had been spared. The result was the birth of the Minotaur, the monstrous half-man, half-bull of legend. Daedalus, moved by the plight of poor Pasiphaë, constructed a great labyrinth for the abomination.



Minos was infuriated and threatened to kill Daedalus, who went into hiding. Although Minos ordered all of Crete searched, Daedalus eluded him. In some versions, Minos imprisons Daedalus in his own labyrinth. Daedalus, realizing his danger, built wings which he could use to fly away to safety.

Daedalus and Icarus
In Ovid’s version of the myth, Daedalus warns Icarus to fly neither too close to the sun nor too close to the water. If he flies too low, the water will make the wings heavy, and if he flies too high, the sun will melt the wax holding the feathers onto the wing frame.

Icarus did not heed his father, however. An exuberant youth, he reveled in the freedom his wings gave him and he flew too high. The sun melted the wax, the wings fell apart, and Icarus plummeted to his death in the sea near the Island of Icaria, named for him.

Daedalus and Minos, Part II
Devastated, Daedalus moved to Sicily, where he took up residence at the court of Cocalus. King Minos had not forgotten his wrath, however, and he came up with a clever riddle to find out where Daedalus was hiding. Minos offered a reward to anyone who could thread a string through the coils of a small seashell. Eventually, the seashell and riddle arrived at the court of Cocalus.

Daedalus, an old man by then, was still clever. He solved the riddle by tying a thread to an ant, which he then lured through the shell with honey. Minos now knew where Daedalus was hiding and demanded that Cocalus turn him over. Cocalus and Daedalus tricked Minos into taking a bath first, and then Daedalus killed him (in some versions, the daughters of Cocalus do the murder) by pouring boiling water on him.

Importance of the Legend
Most people only know the middle part of the legend, the part which concerns Icarus, and do not know about the parts that involve Talos or Minos. The Icarus legend is often used as a parable about how people who do not heed good advice and “fly too high,” running great risk.



Read more: The Myth of Daedalus: Legend of the Great Inventor of Athens Who Took Wing With Icarus | Suite101.com
 
So thats a no on you explaining what happened to the mormons and their thoughts on blacks in 78. You wont explain what changed?

Additionally, you wont even talk about the holy underwear?

What about the tablets? Why cant anyone see them...who exactly did see them?

Why would this religion start here in the states. What happened to Smith?

These are honest questions..but you come back with "Still being stupid and disingenuous, huh?"..

No. Now yer being stupid disingenuous AND transparent. You are trying to change the subject and move the goalposts. We see right through it.

You were making fun of the man for his religion. And then you have been trying to play innocent and going "Who, me?" Like Alfred E Neuman. Your best bet all along would have been to say "Damn right I'm making fun of his religion, it's silly".

Instead you come across as a stupid liar that by playing the poor innocent "Well I'm just asking a question, duHUH". And we all see right through you. And we're not going to let you off the hook.

The issue has never been about Mormonism. The issue is you attacking someone for their religion and then acting stupid and falsely innocent.

The fact that this has to be explained to you only makes me start to lean more heavily to the (A) side of things. Yer just stupid.

Stilll no insight from you on that religion? I dont understand how calling someone a mormon is an insult sir and am asking you specific questions abut it.

Comments? Specific comments about the religion itself? Can you explain where they got a negative stigma?
You did say Beck is a mormon right?


WTF, Do I studder? Are You just half a pint short? Glenn Beck is a converted Mormon.

1) I know more than You Think.

2) You know more than You claim.

3) Come clean or drop it.
 
So thats a no on you explaining what happened to the mormons and their thoughts on blacks in 78. You wont explain what changed?

Additionally, you wont even talk about the holy underwear?

What about the tablets? Why cant anyone see them...who exactly did see them?

Why would this religion start here in the states. What happened to Smith?

These are honest questions..but you come back with "Still being stupid and disingenuous, huh?"..

No. Now yer being stupid disingenuous AND transparent. You are trying to change the subject and move the goalposts. We see right through it.

You were making fun of the man for his religion. And then you have been trying to play innocent and going "Who, me?" Like Alfred E Neuman. Your best bet all along would have been to say "Damn right I'm making fun of his religion, it's silly".

Instead you come across as a stupid liar that by playing the poor innocent "Well I'm just asking a question, duHUH". And we all see right through you. And we're not going to let you off the hook.

The issue has never been about Mormonism. The issue is you attacking someone for their religion and then acting stupid and falsely innocent.

The fact that this has to be explained to you only makes me start to lean more heavily to the (A) side of things. Yer just stupid.

Stilll no insight from you on that religion? I dont understand how calling someone a mormon is an insult sir and am asking you specific questions abut it.

Comments? Specific comments about the religion itself? Can you explain where they got a negative stigma?
You did say Beck is a mormon right?

You do realize that you are continuing to make yourself look like a fool...and continuing to prove my point, right?

Wait. I forgot. You're stupid. Maybe you don't realize that. OK then, continue making yourself look like a fool.
 
Intense...seriously...what? You are blaming me for crap going on in this republican run state? Come on.

Republicans don't run Arizona . Open Borders, Crime, shithole quality of life, McCain. The first thing the Dems in the Senate did after the election was throw him a fucking party. McCain ain't no conservative. Clusterfuck, the mighty derailer comes to mind with his merry men.

Judging Alito: The Gang of 14 Factor
by Ken Rudin

Joe Raedle /Getty Images News Judge Samuel Alito (left) meets with Sen. Mark Pryor (R-AR) on Capitol Hill, Nov. 3, 2005. Pryor is part of the Gang of 14, a group of senators who may play a pivotal role in deciding whether Alito's nomination to the high court is filibustered.
text sizeAAAJanuary 4, 2006
The prospects of Judge Samuel Alito winning confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court will probably rest with a group of senators known as the Gang of 14. That's the group of seven Republican and seven Democratic (mostly pragmatic) senators who kept the Senate from plunging into a battle over the role of the filibuster last year. They may also hold the key to keeping the Senate from falling into acrimony over another judicial filibuster regarding Judge Alito.


The group formed last year after Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist warned of a stiff response if Democrats continued to block up-or-down votes on some of President Bush's judicial nominees. Frist vowed to unleash what became known as the "nuclear option," which would curtail the ability of the minority to filibuster. The issue, which went on for months, threatened to end what little comity there had been between the two parties.


At the last moment, 14 senators came together and defused what would have been a historical blowup. Under the agreement, the seven Republicans said they would not support Frist's "nuclear option." The seven Democrats agreed to no longer block three previously filibustered Bush nominees and pledged to consider the filibuster of future nominees only under "extreme circumstances." (The phrase "extreme circumstances" was never defined.)


John Roberts easily survived the process: Only 22 of the Senate's 44 Democrats -- and none of the Republicans -- voted against his confirmation as chief justice. In part, that's because Roberts had little in the way of a "paper trail" that his opponents could use to warrant a filibuster. Samuel Alito is different. He has a far more voluminous record on a score of issues, including but not limited to abortion. So some Democrats are openly discussing the possibility of a filibuster. And once again, attention is on the Gang of 14 and their role in Alito's chances for confirmation.


Some observers have characterized the 14 as moderates. But that's not exactly accurate. On the Republican side, it would be fair to call Maine's Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins moderates. But Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island is as close to a Republican liberal as you could find. And while Mike DeWine of Ohio is considered a moderate conservative, John McCain (AZ), John Warner (VA) and Lindsey Graham (SC) are reliable conservatives on most issues. Nearly all the Democrats in the group, however, are considered moderates: Ben Nelson (NE), Mark Pryor (AR), Joseph Lieberman (CT), Mary Landrieu (LA) and Ken Salazar (CO). Hawaii's Daniel Inouye, though, is a liberal. And for the most part, Robert Byrd -- the senior member of the Senate -- is beyond ideological categorization.


One thing that most of the 14 senators may have in common is a maverick streak -- a willingness, at times, to put partisanship aside and work for a compromise. And that's what brought the "Gang of 14" together. Here is a snapshot look at the group:

REPUBLICANS (7):


Susan Collins (ME)



Collins has been the target of advocacy groups from the left and the right regarding judicial nominations. She is a pro-choice moderate Republican, and she has expressed concern about Alito's votes on abortion. But she also says she sees no grounds for a filibuster.



Lincoln Chafee (RI)



Perhaps the most liberal of any Senate Republican, Chafee has a history of voting against the GOP leadership -- which is almost a no-brainer in an overwhelmingly Democratic state. He is among the most vulnerable Senate incumbents up for re-election this year. Even before he gets to the general election, Chafee is facing a strong challenge from the right in the September primary.



Mike DeWine (OH)



DeWine's participation in the group has not been much of a help back home. Conservatives who were pushing for the "nuclear option" are now talking about finding a candidate to challenge DeWine in the May GOP primary. DeWine's son lost in last June's special congressional primary in southwest Ohio; one of the reasons given for his defeat was the senior DeWine's support for the judicial compromise. The Ohio Republican Party has been rocked by scandal over the past year or so, and many in the state GOP on the ballot in 2006 -- including DeWine -- could find themselves in trouble. As for the Alito nomination, DeWine has said it does not "qualify for filibuster material." He has said he would support the nuclear option if the Democrats decided to hold up the nomination.



Lindsey Graham (SC)



A conservative, Graham is willing to criticize his party elders and reach out to Democrats, which reminds many of John McCain, whom he endorsed for president in 2000. Graham and DeWine are the only members of the Gang of 14 who are on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Like DeWine, Graham has said the Alito nomination does not warrant a filibuster.



John McCain (AZ)



McCain's determined effort to work with Democrats in forging compromises may be one of the reasons he is not especially popular with GOP leaders, including Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. The once-and-likely-future presidential candidate is a media favorite whose pronouncements always receive maximum attention. But as one prominent conservative said, "liberals and media types" don't vote in Republican primaries; Republicans do.



Some view McCain's participation in the Gang of 14 as a "betrayal" that they plan to use against him during his likely presidential bid in 2008. While he has long been looked on nervously by Bush supporters, McCain is wildly popular at home, having won won a fourth term in 2004 with 77 percent of the vote. McCain has described Alito's record as "one of a thoroughly experienced, capable and principled jurist and lawyer who has dedicated his professional life to public service."



Olympia Snowe (ME)



Snowe was one of the most vocal opponents of limiting the right to filibuster, declaring that if it came to a vote, she would side with the Democrats. She is a pro-choice moderate who voted for John Roberts (as did every other Republican). Snowe is up for re-election this year.



John Warner (VA)



Warner is much closer to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist than McCain is, but he never supported the move to make it more difficult to mount a filibuster. He worked especially close with Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), another Gang of 14 member, to work out the compromise. A leading Senate figure in the decision to publicize the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, Warner has said he hopes the group will play a "pivotal" role in the Alito confirmation process.


DEMOCRATS (7):



Robert Byrd (WV)



In arguing against the nuclear option, Byrd saw himself as a guardian of Senate procedure and custom. But some Republicans say that as majority leader in the 1970s and '80s, Byrd also changed rules to suit himself and his party. Still, John Warner credits Byrd's participation as one reason why the compromise came about. Byrd voted to confirm Roberts. First elected to the Senate in 1958, Byrd is seeking a ninth term this year; he is unlikely to work up a sweat in winning it.



Daniel Inouye (HI)



Inouye was the only member of the group to vote against John Roberts for chief justice. Most media reports indicate that Inouye has not had much of an influence among the 14; there has been speculation that he was added to the group at the last minute in order to make sure there was an equal number of Democrats and Republicans.



Mary Landrieu (LA)



Within days after the Gang of 14 announcement reaching a compromise on judicial nominees, Landrieu and Byrd were the only Democrats to vote to confirm the previously filibustered Priscilla Owen to the U.S. Court of Appeals. Landrieu narrowly won re-election in 2002 and has charted a fairly moderate course in the Senate. She voted to confirm Roberts.



Joseph Lieberman (CT)



Lieberman has a history of showing a willingness to reach across the aisle and work on compromises with Republicans; that's one reason why Al Gore picked him as his running mate in 2000. Lieberman continued that tradition by voting to confirm Roberts to the Supreme Court. But lately, this willingness has alienated many of his fellow Democrats -- especially concerning his endorsement of President Bush's handling of the Iraq war. Some in Connecticut are talking about finding a liberal challenger in the Democratic primary this year, when Lieberman runs for a fourth term.



Ben Nelson (NE)



As one who is philosophically opposed to the filibustering of judicial nominees, Nelson was the leading Democrat pushing for a compromise from the start. Not long after the compromise was reached, Nelson was the lone Democrat to vote to confirm Janice Rogers Brown to the U.S. Court of Appeals; Brown had been one of the judges whose confirmation was held up by a filibuster. Nelson also voted to confirm John Roberts to the Supreme Court. A conservative Democrat in a very conservative Republican state, Nelson has scared away most top GOP challengers in his bid for a second term this year.



Mark Pryor (AR)



Pryor seems to be following the same centrist path as his father, David, who represented Arkansas in the Senate for 18 years and was known for his moderate voting record. When Mark Pryor was elected in 2002 -- by defeating Republican incumbent Tim Hutchinson -- he was somewhat vague on the issues. But he has since cast his lot against gun control and certain abortion measures. Pryor voted to confirm Roberts.



Ken Salazar (CO)



During his 2004 campaign, when he won his first Senate term, Salazar criticized his fellow Democrats for holding up Bush's judicial nominees. Salazar voted to confirm Roberts. Like his Republican colleague Snowe, Salazar said he was concerned about Roberts' rulings (particularly regarding affirmative action) but saw no reason for a filibuster.
 
Intense...seriously...what? You are blaming me for crap going on in this republican run state? Come on.

Republicans don't run Arizona . Open Borders, Crime, shithole quality of life, McCain. The first thing the Dems in the Senate did after the election was throw him a fucking party. McCain ain't no conservative. Clusterfuck, the mighty derailer comes to mind with his merry men.

Judging Alito: The Gang of 14 Factor
by Ken Rudin

Joe Raedle /Getty Images News Judge Samuel Alito (left) meets with Sen. Mark Pryor (R-AR) on Capitol Hill, Nov. 3, 2005. Pryor is part of the Gang of 14, a group of senators who may play a pivotal role in deciding whether Alito's nomination to the high court is filibustered.
text sizeAAAJanuary 4, 2006
The prospects of Judge Samuel Alito winning confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court will probably rest with a group of senators known as the Gang of 14. That's the group of seven Republican and seven Democratic (mostly pragmatic) senators who kept the Senate from plunging into a battle over the role of the filibuster last year. They may also hold the key to keeping the Senate from falling into acrimony over another judicial filibuster regarding Judge Alito.


The group formed last year after Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist warned of a stiff response if Democrats continued to block up-or-down votes on some of President Bush's judicial nominees. Frist vowed to unleash what became known as the "nuclear option," which would curtail the ability of the minority to filibuster. The issue, which went on for months, threatened to end what little comity there had been between the two parties.


At the last moment, 14 senators came together and defused what would have been a historical blowup. Under the agreement, the seven Republicans said they would not support Frist's "nuclear option." The seven Democrats agreed to no longer block three previously filibustered Bush nominees and pledged to consider the filibuster of future nominees only under "extreme circumstances." (The phrase "extreme circumstances" was never defined.)


John Roberts easily survived the process: Only 22 of the Senate's 44 Democrats -- and none of the Republicans -- voted against his confirmation as chief justice. In part, that's because Roberts had little in the way of a "paper trail" that his opponents could use to warrant a filibuster. Samuel Alito is different. He has a far more voluminous record on a score of issues, including but not limited to abortion. So some Democrats are openly discussing the possibility of a filibuster. And once again, attention is on the Gang of 14 and their role in Alito's chances for confirmation.


Some observers have characterized the 14 as moderates. But that's not exactly accurate. On the Republican side, it would be fair to call Maine's Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins moderates. But Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island is as close to a Republican liberal as you could find. And while Mike DeWine of Ohio is considered a moderate conservative, John McCain (AZ), John Warner (VA) and Lindsey Graham (SC) are reliable conservatives on most issues. Nearly all the Democrats in the group, however, are considered moderates: Ben Nelson (NE), Mark Pryor (AR), Joseph Lieberman (CT), Mary Landrieu (LA) and Ken Salazar (CO). Hawaii's Daniel Inouye, though, is a liberal. And for the most part, Robert Byrd -- the senior member of the Senate -- is beyond ideological categorization.


One thing that most of the 14 senators may have in common is a maverick streak -- a willingness, at times, to put partisanship aside and work for a compromise. And that's what brought the "Gang of 14" together. Here is a snapshot look at the group:

REPUBLICANS (7):


Susan Collins (ME)



Collins has been the target of advocacy groups from the left and the right regarding judicial nominations. She is a pro-choice moderate Republican, and she has expressed concern about Alito's votes on abortion. But she also says she sees no grounds for a filibuster.



Lincoln Chafee (RI)



Perhaps the most liberal of any Senate Republican, Chafee has a history of voting against the GOP leadership -- which is almost a no-brainer in an overwhelmingly Democratic state. He is among the most vulnerable Senate incumbents up for re-election this year. Even before he gets to the general election, Chafee is facing a strong challenge from the right in the September primary.



Mike DeWine (OH)



DeWine's participation in the group has not been much of a help back home. Conservatives who were pushing for the "nuclear option" are now talking about finding a candidate to challenge DeWine in the May GOP primary. DeWine's son lost in last June's special congressional primary in southwest Ohio; one of the reasons given for his defeat was the senior DeWine's support for the judicial compromise. The Ohio Republican Party has been rocked by scandal over the past year or so, and many in the state GOP on the ballot in 2006 -- including DeWine -- could find themselves in trouble. As for the Alito nomination, DeWine has said it does not "qualify for filibuster material." He has said he would support the nuclear option if the Democrats decided to hold up the nomination.



Lindsey Graham (SC)



A conservative, Graham is willing to criticize his party elders and reach out to Democrats, which reminds many of John McCain, whom he endorsed for president in 2000. Graham and DeWine are the only members of the Gang of 14 who are on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Like DeWine, Graham has said the Alito nomination does not warrant a filibuster.



John McCain (AZ)



McCain's determined effort to work with Democrats in forging compromises may be one of the reasons he is not especially popular with GOP leaders, including Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. The once-and-likely-future presidential candidate is a media favorite whose pronouncements always receive maximum attention. But as one prominent conservative said, "liberals and media types" don't vote in Republican primaries; Republicans do.



Some view McCain's participation in the Gang of 14 as a "betrayal" that they plan to use against him during his likely presidential bid in 2008. While he has long been looked on nervously by Bush supporters, McCain is wildly popular at home, having won won a fourth term in 2004 with 77 percent of the vote. McCain has described Alito's record as "one of a thoroughly experienced, capable and principled jurist and lawyer who has dedicated his professional life to public service."



Olympia Snowe (ME)



Snowe was one of the most vocal opponents of limiting the right to filibuster, declaring that if it came to a vote, she would side with the Democrats. She is a pro-choice moderate who voted for John Roberts (as did every other Republican). Snowe is up for re-election this year.



John Warner (VA)



Warner is much closer to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist than McCain is, but he never supported the move to make it more difficult to mount a filibuster. He worked especially close with Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), another Gang of 14 member, to work out the compromise. A leading Senate figure in the decision to publicize the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, Warner has said he hopes the group will play a "pivotal" role in the Alito confirmation process.


DEMOCRATS (7):



Robert Byrd (WV)



In arguing against the nuclear option, Byrd saw himself as a guardian of Senate procedure and custom. But some Republicans say that as majority leader in the 1970s and '80s, Byrd also changed rules to suit himself and his party. Still, John Warner credits Byrd's participation as one reason why the compromise came about. Byrd voted to confirm Roberts. First elected to the Senate in 1958, Byrd is seeking a ninth term this year; he is unlikely to work up a sweat in winning it.



Daniel Inouye (HI)



Inouye was the only member of the group to vote against John Roberts for chief justice. Most media reports indicate that Inouye has not had much of an influence among the 14; there has been speculation that he was added to the group at the last minute in order to make sure there was an equal number of Democrats and Republicans.



Mary Landrieu (LA)



Within days after the Gang of 14 announcement reaching a compromise on judicial nominees, Landrieu and Byrd were the only Democrats to vote to confirm the previously filibustered Priscilla Owen to the U.S. Court of Appeals. Landrieu narrowly won re-election in 2002 and has charted a fairly moderate course in the Senate. She voted to confirm Roberts.



Joseph Lieberman (CT)



Lieberman has a history of showing a willingness to reach across the aisle and work on compromises with Republicans; that's one reason why Al Gore picked him as his running mate in 2000. Lieberman continued that tradition by voting to confirm Roberts to the Supreme Court. But lately, this willingness has alienated many of his fellow Democrats -- especially concerning his endorsement of President Bush's handling of the Iraq war. Some in Connecticut are talking about finding a liberal challenger in the Democratic primary this year, when Lieberman runs for a fourth term.



Ben Nelson (NE)



As one who is philosophically opposed to the filibustering of judicial nominees, Nelson was the leading Democrat pushing for a compromise from the start. Not long after the compromise was reached, Nelson was the lone Democrat to vote to confirm Janice Rogers Brown to the U.S. Court of Appeals; Brown had been one of the judges whose confirmation was held up by a filibuster. Nelson also voted to confirm John Roberts to the Supreme Court. A conservative Democrat in a very conservative Republican state, Nelson has scared away most top GOP challengers in his bid for a second term this year.



Mark Pryor (AR)



Pryor seems to be following the same centrist path as his father, David, who represented Arkansas in the Senate for 18 years and was known for his moderate voting record. When Mark Pryor was elected in 2002 -- by defeating Republican incumbent Tim Hutchinson -- he was somewhat vague on the issues. But he has since cast his lot against gun control and certain abortion measures. Pryor voted to confirm Roberts.



Ken Salazar (CO)



During his 2004 campaign, when he won his first Senate term, Salazar criticized his fellow Democrats for holding up Bush's judicial nominees. Salazar voted to confirm Roberts. Like his Republican colleague Snowe, Salazar said he was concerned about Roberts' rulings (particularly regarding affirmative action) but saw no reason for a filibuster.

Is Arizona a blue or red state? Funny question, huh?
 
No. Now yer being stupid disingenuous AND transparent. You are trying to change the subject and move the goalposts. We see right through it.

You were making fun of the man for his religion. And then you have been trying to play innocent and going "Who, me?" Like Alfred E Neuman. Your best bet all along would have been to say "Damn right I'm making fun of his religion, it's silly".

Instead you come across as a stupid liar that by playing the poor innocent "Well I'm just asking a question, duHUH". And we all see right through you. And we're not going to let you off the hook.

The issue has never been about Mormonism. The issue is you attacking someone for their religion and then acting stupid and falsely innocent.

The fact that this has to be explained to you only makes me start to lean more heavily to the (A) side of things. Yer just stupid.

Stilll no insight from you on that religion? I dont understand how calling someone a mormon is an insult sir and am asking you specific questions abut it.

Comments? Specific comments about the religion itself? Can you explain where they got a negative stigma?
You did say Beck is a mormon right?

You do realize that you are continuing to make yourself look like a fool...and continuing to prove my point, right?

Wait. I forgot. You're stupid. Maybe you don't realize that. OK then, continue making yourself look like a fool.

I am beginning to think you have no idea what you are talking about because you wont comment on any of my specific questions about Mormonism.

You refuse to answer any questions about them, you simply attack me.

THAT SAYS IT ALL SIR.

i will remind you my questions.

the underwear
the tablets and why no one can read them now or who read them initially
their feelings on blacks prior to 78 and after
What happened to smith
etc etc..
or will you simply respond by calling me a name?

oh and names hurt sir. :lol:
 
Intense...seriously...what? You are blaming me for crap going on in this republican run state? Come on.

Republicans don't run Arizona . Open Borders, Crime, shithole quality of life, McCain. The first thing the Dems in the Senate did after the election was throw him a fucking party. McCain ain't no conservative. Clusterfuck, the mighty derailer comes to mind with his merry men.

Judging Alito: The Gang of 14 Factor
by Ken Rudin

Joe Raedle /Getty Images News Judge Samuel Alito (left) meets with Sen. Mark Pryor (R-AR) on Capitol Hill, Nov. 3, 2005. Pryor is part of the Gang of 14, a group of senators who may play a pivotal role in deciding whether Alito's nomination to the high court is filibustered.
text sizeAAAJanuary 4, 2006
The prospects of Judge Samuel Alito winning confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court will probably rest with a group of senators known as the Gang of 14. That's the group of seven Republican and seven Democratic (mostly pragmatic) senators who kept the Senate from plunging into a battle over the role of the filibuster last year. They may also hold the key to keeping the Senate from falling into acrimony over another judicial filibuster regarding Judge Alito.


The group formed last year after Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist warned of a stiff response if Democrats continued to block up-or-down votes on some of President Bush's judicial nominees. Frist vowed to unleash what became known as the "nuclear option," which would curtail the ability of the minority to filibuster. The issue, which went on for months, threatened to end what little comity there had been between the two parties.


At the last moment, 14 senators came together and defused what would have been a historical blowup. Under the agreement, the seven Republicans said they would not support Frist's "nuclear option." The seven Democrats agreed to no longer block three previously filibustered Bush nominees and pledged to consider the filibuster of future nominees only under "extreme circumstances." (The phrase "extreme circumstances" was never defined.)


John Roberts easily survived the process: Only 22 of the Senate's 44 Democrats -- and none of the Republicans -- voted against his confirmation as chief justice. In part, that's because Roberts had little in the way of a "paper trail" that his opponents could use to warrant a filibuster. Samuel Alito is different. He has a far more voluminous record on a score of issues, including but not limited to abortion. So some Democrats are openly discussing the possibility of a filibuster. And once again, attention is on the Gang of 14 and their role in Alito's chances for confirmation.


Some observers have characterized the 14 as moderates. But that's not exactly accurate. On the Republican side, it would be fair to call Maine's Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins moderates. But Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island is as close to a Republican liberal as you could find. And while Mike DeWine of Ohio is considered a moderate conservative, John McCain (AZ), John Warner (VA) and Lindsey Graham (SC) are reliable conservatives on most issues. Nearly all the Democrats in the group, however, are considered moderates: Ben Nelson (NE), Mark Pryor (AR), Joseph Lieberman (CT), Mary Landrieu (LA) and Ken Salazar (CO). Hawaii's Daniel Inouye, though, is a liberal. And for the most part, Robert Byrd -- the senior member of the Senate -- is beyond ideological categorization.


One thing that most of the 14 senators may have in common is a maverick streak -- a willingness, at times, to put partisanship aside and work for a compromise. And that's what brought the "Gang of 14" together. Here is a snapshot look at the group:

REPUBLICANS (7):


Susan Collins (ME)



Collins has been the target of advocacy groups from the left and the right regarding judicial nominations. She is a pro-choice moderate Republican, and she has expressed concern about Alito's votes on abortion. But she also says she sees no grounds for a filibuster.



Lincoln Chafee (RI)



Perhaps the most liberal of any Senate Republican, Chafee has a history of voting against the GOP leadership -- which is almost a no-brainer in an overwhelmingly Democratic state. He is among the most vulnerable Senate incumbents up for re-election this year. Even before he gets to the general election, Chafee is facing a strong challenge from the right in the September primary.



Mike DeWine (OH)



DeWine's participation in the group has not been much of a help back home. Conservatives who were pushing for the "nuclear option" are now talking about finding a candidate to challenge DeWine in the May GOP primary. DeWine's son lost in last June's special congressional primary in southwest Ohio; one of the reasons given for his defeat was the senior DeWine's support for the judicial compromise. The Ohio Republican Party has been rocked by scandal over the past year or so, and many in the state GOP on the ballot in 2006 -- including DeWine -- could find themselves in trouble. As for the Alito nomination, DeWine has said it does not "qualify for filibuster material." He has said he would support the nuclear option if the Democrats decided to hold up the nomination.



Lindsey Graham (SC)



A conservative, Graham is willing to criticize his party elders and reach out to Democrats, which reminds many of John McCain, whom he endorsed for president in 2000. Graham and DeWine are the only members of the Gang of 14 who are on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Like DeWine, Graham has said the Alito nomination does not warrant a filibuster.



John McCain (AZ)



McCain's determined effort to work with Democrats in forging compromises may be one of the reasons he is not especially popular with GOP leaders, including Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. The once-and-likely-future presidential candidate is a media favorite whose pronouncements always receive maximum attention. But as one prominent conservative said, "liberals and media types" don't vote in Republican primaries; Republicans do.



Some view McCain's participation in the Gang of 14 as a "betrayal" that they plan to use against him during his likely presidential bid in 2008. While he has long been looked on nervously by Bush supporters, McCain is wildly popular at home, having won won a fourth term in 2004 with 77 percent of the vote. McCain has described Alito's record as "one of a thoroughly experienced, capable and principled jurist and lawyer who has dedicated his professional life to public service."



Olympia Snowe (ME)



Snowe was one of the most vocal opponents of limiting the right to filibuster, declaring that if it came to a vote, she would side with the Democrats. She is a pro-choice moderate who voted for John Roberts (as did every other Republican). Snowe is up for re-election this year.



John Warner (VA)



Warner is much closer to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist than McCain is, but he never supported the move to make it more difficult to mount a filibuster. He worked especially close with Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), another Gang of 14 member, to work out the compromise. A leading Senate figure in the decision to publicize the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, Warner has said he hopes the group will play a "pivotal" role in the Alito confirmation process.


DEMOCRATS (7):



Robert Byrd (WV)



In arguing against the nuclear option, Byrd saw himself as a guardian of Senate procedure and custom. But some Republicans say that as majority leader in the 1970s and '80s, Byrd also changed rules to suit himself and his party. Still, John Warner credits Byrd's participation as one reason why the compromise came about. Byrd voted to confirm Roberts. First elected to the Senate in 1958, Byrd is seeking a ninth term this year; he is unlikely to work up a sweat in winning it.



Daniel Inouye (HI)



Inouye was the only member of the group to vote against John Roberts for chief justice. Most media reports indicate that Inouye has not had much of an influence among the 14; there has been speculation that he was added to the group at the last minute in order to make sure there was an equal number of Democrats and Republicans.



Mary Landrieu (LA)



Within days after the Gang of 14 announcement reaching a compromise on judicial nominees, Landrieu and Byrd were the only Democrats to vote to confirm the previously filibustered Priscilla Owen to the U.S. Court of Appeals. Landrieu narrowly won re-election in 2002 and has charted a fairly moderate course in the Senate. She voted to confirm Roberts.



Joseph Lieberman (CT)



Lieberman has a history of showing a willingness to reach across the aisle and work on compromises with Republicans; that's one reason why Al Gore picked him as his running mate in 2000. Lieberman continued that tradition by voting to confirm Roberts to the Supreme Court. But lately, this willingness has alienated many of his fellow Democrats -- especially concerning his endorsement of President Bush's handling of the Iraq war. Some in Connecticut are talking about finding a liberal challenger in the Democratic primary this year, when Lieberman runs for a fourth term.



Ben Nelson (NE)



As one who is philosophically opposed to the filibustering of judicial nominees, Nelson was the leading Democrat pushing for a compromise from the start. Not long after the compromise was reached, Nelson was the lone Democrat to vote to confirm Janice Rogers Brown to the U.S. Court of Appeals; Brown had been one of the judges whose confirmation was held up by a filibuster. Nelson also voted to confirm John Roberts to the Supreme Court. A conservative Democrat in a very conservative Republican state, Nelson has scared away most top GOP challengers in his bid for a second term this year.



Mark Pryor (AR)



Pryor seems to be following the same centrist path as his father, David, who represented Arkansas in the Senate for 18 years and was known for his moderate voting record. When Mark Pryor was elected in 2002 -- by defeating Republican incumbent Tim Hutchinson -- he was somewhat vague on the issues. But he has since cast his lot against gun control and certain abortion measures. Pryor voted to confirm Roberts.



Ken Salazar (CO)



During his 2004 campaign, when he won his first Senate term, Salazar criticized his fellow Democrats for holding up Bush's judicial nominees. Salazar voted to confirm Roberts. Like his Republican colleague Snowe, Salazar said he was concerned about Roberts' rulings (particularly regarding affirmative action) but saw no reason for a filibuster.

Is Arizona a blue or red state? Funny question, huh?

Are You Powerless? Every time McCain undermined Conservative Principles am I?

Build the Fence. Build a Wall, Build a Mote, build a Canal from Brownsville to San Diego. We've paid the cost many times over. Seal the border. Arizona is Republican by a thread.
 
Stilll no insight from you on that religion? I dont understand how calling someone a mormon is an insult sir and am asking you specific questions abut it.

Comments? Specific comments about the religion itself? Can you explain where they got a negative stigma?
You did say Beck is a mormon right?

You do realize that you are continuing to make yourself look like a fool...and continuing to prove my point, right?

Wait. I forgot. You're stupid. Maybe you don't realize that. OK then, continue making yourself look like a fool.

I am beginning to think you have no idea what you are talking about because you wont comment on any of my specific questions about Mormonism.

You refuse to answer any questions about them, you simply attack me.

THAT SAYS IT ALL SIR.

i will remind you my questions.

the underwear
the tablets and why no one can read them now or who read them initially
their feelings on blacks prior to 78 and after
What happened to smith
etc etc..
or will you simply respond by calling me a name?

oh and names hurt sir. :lol:

You are the Asshole SIR. What are we doing here? Playing Fetch? Supply Your Own Ammo. Why ask questions that you know the answer to? Piss, Shit, or get off the pot.
 
[Build the Fence. Build a Wall, Build a Mote, build a Canal from Brownsville to San Diego. We've paid the cost many times over. Seal the border. Arizona is Republican by a thread.

But you just said its a democratic run state? Now I am confused. Is it red or blue?
 

Forum List

Back
Top