JimBob2232

What tactics are you referring to campy?

I consider myself a conservative moreso than a republican. In fact recently I am beginning to move closer and closer to the libertarian side of things. However, I think one of the big mistakes we make as society is placing labels on groups of people. too many people vote for a candidate because of the letter next to their name, and not on what they stand for. I do think your labels are a bit wrong. I dont think the term conservative and liberal is a reflection soley upon fiscal matters. And I dont like rep or dem is a reflection on just social matters. Many a democrat has run as being a "fiscal conservative". I have yet to hear the term "fiscal liberal". But again, I dont think its even important what we label people. We should be looking at they dynamics of the situation and not a letter next to a name.

Yeah...if it does anything. About the only thing this agreement does is ensure 3 judges get a vote. After that, the democrats are still free to filibuster any nomination if they deem the circumstance "extreme". For the record, the senate JUST TODAY voted not to close debate on Bolton. This is effectively a filibuster. They will do this again and again until frist pulls his trump card and brings back up the nuclear option. This is not over yet by any means.

Well...they would if the democrats actually put someone up with strong moral values that are in line with the evangelical movement....but they wont. In fact they will find someone so far to the left that the evengelicals will have no choice but to vote for a conservative who may not even represent their views. Where this really comes into play is the republican primary. Where the better republican candidates may lose out because there are more conservative candicates that more closely reflect the views of the conservative party. Regardless of who runs, the election will be close...AGAIN. One exception. If is it mccain vs. Hillary, mccain wins in a landslide. Hillary will only get the pro-hillary voters. Many democrats will cross over, many republicans will be dismayed, but will vote for McCain. And the overwhelming majority of fringe voters will go to mccain. Hillary is very polarizing. About 25 percent of the population really likes her. Some will vote for her because of the D next to her name, but many will be turned off, and mccain gives them a good alternative (one that Bush or Rice doesnt give them)

I doubt Bush will run in 08. 2012 or 2016 is a definate possiblity. Dont discount a few virginians from this race. Gov. Mark Warner ( D ) Sen. George Allen ( R ) Warner is a popular governor of a southern state, who probably would swing it into the democrats column. (I know many here dont like him, but you cant deny his popularity in VA). Sen. Allen would also be a strong candidate. Would probably make a better VP at this point than pres. I wouldnt be suprised to see him on the ticket in 2008. The democrats have the same bunch of tried and tested losers they will run out there (Clark, Edwards, Gore, Kerry) which is why Hillary and Warner make alot of sense, The republicans have a lot of big name moderates. (McCain, Powell, Guiliani etc.), who will struggle in primaries. (Powell wont run anyway, and Guliani is unlikely). But they are lacking strong conservatives to challange them. Frist has blown his chance already IMO. The guy is a horrible leader in the senate. Santorum might lose his senate seat. I dont think Rice wants to run. Maybe Mitt Romney, but I dont know much about him. The republicans are hurting with strong conservatives going up for nomination. And Newt....fughetaboutit. Edited to remove registered trademark of sir george allen.

No big deal. Lots of guys didnt show up. I wouldnt lose sleep over it. Willis was probably bowling.

How about travis and our #1 for tennessees #1.... Hmm....DO IT

I believe that the agreement also stated that the others would NOT get an up or down vote. If the republicans put them up for a vote, I belive this would be in violation of the agreement and the democrats woudl then be right (not constitutionally...but whatever) to fillibuster. There is also some debate as to whether they would even get the 50 necessary votes to begin with. I agree with frist and reid looking weak. This is because they are. Frist is blowing his presidential aspirations pretty good right now, and Reid is lucky he is in the senate until 2010, because he doesnt have a snowballs chance in Baltimore of winning an election in Nevada right now. We need change in the senate. We need people who dont think they are on top of the world. Look at that press conference. Every one of them thought that they just saved the world and are the most important people on earth. We need representatives of the people in office. Not this bunch of gomers. IT IS WRITTEN IN! Read the constitution (or my post)! It is there! It specifically states that the senate must advise and consent by way of 2/3 vote for treaties. It then says the senate must advise and consent (with no mention of a 2/3 vote) for judges. Therefore judges need only a majority of votes, or else it would also say 2/3 is required. The senate MUST abide by the constitutional requirements it is founded upon. Show me where the constitution says ANYTHING about going in alphabetical order. I am not completely against the fillibuster. But when the constitution specifically calls out for a majority vote, it cannot be ignored.

Yes....they caved and gave them new teams Same thing they will do with LA! Now the real question is this...I am an out of town bills fan...and I am not from buffalo (albany). I am now in Virginia. For the sake of discussion, lets say a new team comes to buffalo (unlikely...). I am not sure I will be a bills fan... I am attached to this team...but if they moved and a completely different franchise came in, it would be interesting to see what happens.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/stor..._len&id=2067684 Aaron Elling anyone? LOL

As another recent clarkson alum...The Dome was where it was at!

This was posted (by me) elsewhere on PPP: First: The ACTUAL text of the constitution in its entirety: Section II, Clause 2 Clause 2: 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. So to disect this passage a little: "He (the President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;" Notice this says 2/3s Of the senators present... FOR A TREATY. This is what the text actually says. Then in Regards to Nominations: "He (the President) shall have Power, and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advise 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 otherwise herein 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." Now, there is a common standard for interpretation: if a word or phrase is used with similar usage in the same or related documents then those words or phrases may be taken to mean the same thing. In this second half of the passage the Senate is again authorized to provide both Advise and Consent; however, there is no requirement for a 2/3s majority of "the Senators present" ... This is a simple case of reading the constitution. It is in black and white. I am still baffled how you can compromise over this issue.

Not disagreeing with you. Point was though, both sides SAID they were right. They compromized on right and wrong. You cant do that. If you are right, you are right, dont compromise. Also, the fact of the matter is Fillibustering judges is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. This is easy to prove, all you have to do is read it. I dont care who is saying it at the moment, it is unconstitutional and should be corrected.

I for one would rather the senate be all bottled up and get nothing accomplished. Every minture they are arguing over fillibusters is one minute they are not spending my money. That said...I dont understand how you can compromise on this issue. Republicans say : Fillibustering judges is unconstitutional. Democrats say : Fillibustering judges is constitutional. How can you compromise on the constitutionality of filibustering judges? You cant. It is pure insanity to compromise on a very black or white issue. Some see this as a victory for democrats, because they blocked some of bushs appointees. Some see it for republicans becaue they got some through. Bottom line is that this issue IS NOT over. Because democrats WILL fillibuster future judges on the "extreme circumstance" clause. Republicans WILL then fight again for the constitutional option. All this really does is give the senate a clean slate to work with...but it wont fix anything. Washington wont change until we elect about 75 different senators and about 300 different representatives to washinton.

So lets say (hypothetically) 2006 comes and republicans control 60 seats in the senate. They can now break a fillibuster. Would this create a "constitutional crisis"? The constitution is set up so that the government acts as a representitive of the people. If the people elect their representatives, then this is the will of the people. Its not a constitutional crisis. In fact it is proof the constitution works. If the democratic party wasnt so anti EVERYTHING, and actually put forth a positive vision for the country perhaps they would win back some of the support they have lost over the last decade. The senates job (and constitutional duty) is to vote on these nominees. The constitution SPECIFICALLY REQUIRES only a majority of senators to approve a nomination. Any fillibuster of a judicial nominee, regardless of political party is unconstitutional.

I have 500 bucks...now all I need is 999,999 more people....

I dont understand the problem with public ownership. It seems like a good solution to the problem...I know its outlawed..im just wondering why

Here are the senators up for re-election in 06 Arizona—Jon Kyl ® Safe California—Dianne Feinstein (D) Safe Connecticut—Joe Lieberman (D) Safe Delaware—Thomas Carper (D) Safe Florida—Bill Nelson (D) Toss-Up Hawaii—Daniel Akaka (D) Safe Indiana—Dick Lugar ® Safe Maine—Olympia Snowe ® Safe if she makes it through a primary Maryland—OPEN Massachusetts—Ted Kennedy (D) Safe if he doesnt retire Michigan—Debbie Stabenow (D) Close Race Minnesota—OPEN Mississippi—Trent Lott ® Safe if lott doesnt retire Missouri—Jim Talent ® Safe Montana—Conrad Burns ® Competitive Nebraska—Ben Nelson (D) Competitive Nevada—John Ensign ® Safe New Jersey—Jon Corzine (D) Depends on what happing with him running for gov. New Mexico—Jeff Bingaman (D) Safe New York—Hillary Clinton (D) Safe North Dakota—Kent Conrad (D) Safe Ohio—Mike DeWine ® Safe Pennsylvania—Rick Santorum ® Close Rhode Island—Lincoln Chafee ® Close Tennessee—OPEN Texas—Kay Bailey Hutchinson ® Safe as long as she doesnt run for gov. Utah—Orrin Hatch ® Safe Vermont—OPEN Should be close. Virginia—George Allen ® Safe Washington—Maria Cantwell (D) Close West Virginia—Robert Byrd (D) Safe if he doesnt retire Wisconsin—Herb Kohl (D) Safe Wyoming—Craig Thomas ® Safe Current status of seats up for election in 2006: 15 Dem 14 Rep 4 Open seats Of the 14 republican seats, 11 appear safe. Santorum, Chafee and Conrad Burns are the only ones in play at the moment. Of the 15 democrat seats up for election, 11 appear safe (assume corzine is safe). Nelson (FL), Nelson (Neb), Stabenow, Cantwell are in play. The 4 open seats (Ten, Vt, Mayrland and Minnesota) are currently occupied by 1 Rep. 2 Democrats and 1 democrat leaning independent. Tennessee could be a seat gained by democrats. Ford will be tough, but its too close to call at the moment. Vermont is a toss up. Bernie Sanders is the likely frontrunner, but he is an independent, and the republicans will throw a strong former governor at him. Maryland - Toss Up Minnesota - Toss up. So the bottom line is that the republicans have 4 seats they are in jeopardy of losing (Frist, Santorum, Chafee and Burns) Possibly add Mississippi if lott does not run. The democrats have 7 seats that they are in jeopardy of losing (Nelson, FL, Nelson, Neb, Stabenow, Cantwell, Jeffords, Dayton, MN and Sarbanes, MD.) Add NJ if corzine wins governor and WV if byrd retires. It will be interesting, and there is a long way to go, but I wouldnt be suprised to see the republicans pick up an additional 1-3 seats in 2006.

You would think Ralph could work up a sales agreement with a group wanting to keep the team in buffalo now. He could still retain 51% Of the team if thats what he wants, but once he passes on, there is an option for the new ownership group to purchase the remainder of the team. I think Ralph could take care of this while he is still around. I hope he does. Even better...the team moves to norfolk, va...but again...im dreaming

Section II, Clause 2 Clause 2: 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. Lets disect this... "He (the President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;" Notice this says 2/3s Of the senators present... which at a minimum would now mean just 33 Senators if only a bare minimum Quorum were present - 51 Senators. This is what the text actually says. Then in Regards to Nominations: "He (the President) shall have Power, and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advise 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 otherwise herein 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." Now, there is a common standard for interpretation: if a word or phrase is used with similar usage in the same or related documents then those words or phrases may be taken to mean the same thing. In this second half of the passage the Senate is again authorized to provide both Advise and Consent; however, there is no requirement for a 2/3s majority of "the Senators present" ... The Democrats are overstepping their bounds. Also, let the democrats threaten to walk out of the senate. A quarom is defined by the constitution. The Constitution requires a majority of Senators (51) for a quorum. Let them walk out. The republicans will still have a quarom to conduct business, and the senators will not be doing their jobs representing their people. This is going to get ugly...

Look again...after they shiFt...there are only 11...

Well, what you are saying is true....however I cant account for the formation of another head... UGH this is terrible (im sure it is simple once you know what is up)

Well, when the day comes and americans get fed up with the republican party, and decide that they want a democrat president, a democratic senate and a democrattic house of representitives, then the democrat president has every right to nominate Justices he sees fit, and they have every right to get an up or down vote on the senate floor, just like these justices do. The republicans will have every right to complain and whine about it, but they should be powerless to do anything about it. THEY LOST. They are not who the american people want running the government. Its called advise and consent. Lets let the senate actually do their job.

Dude, this is killing me..

Wow, 125k! I wish i could get a house for even twice that...I hate hampton roads...