America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 21 years ago by Homebrew. 40 replies replies.
This Died out on the CB Forums, But not on the
usahog Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 12-06-1999
Posts: 22,691
Senate Floor!!!
http://www.rnc.org/newsroom/rncresearch/research022603-2.htm

Hog
Tobasco Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2003
Posts: 2,809

The fillibuster is a bunch of crap.

I heard they wanted him to give verdicts on circumstantial cases. His reply was that it isnt fair to prejudge similer cases that may come up in the future. I agree with that reasoning.

He is very experienced. He has a very clean past record. He is of hispanic origin. The largest minority in the country is hispanics this year.

I normally dont ever use the race card, but the Democrats have many times in the past, now this is their chance to put thier money where their mouth is.

If he were a democrat he would have been shot right into the position.

Republicans are in the White house, They are also the senate majority. Why should Democrats block a good man from being nominated just because he is conservative? Most Republicans are conservative. What do they expect, that the next nominee wont be conservative? Hehe! Thats a joke.

If they dont like it, convince the American people of it, and through voting they will have control and do what they like, within reason.

Just my opinion

Mag





RICKAMAVEN Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
he is a right wing zealot and does not belong on the bench. this is a good filibuster.
Tobasco Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2003
Posts: 2,809

I'm sure that from your perspective Rick, he is too right wing. Well From mine he isnt. Same guy, different perspectives, doesnt surprise me. We will see!

Mag
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
Magnafide

it is good to have different perspectives. helps maintain balance
cwilhelmi Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 07-24-2001
Posts: 2,739
He's so right wing he's about to fall off. Most of the hispanic groups don't support him either because of his politics. The race card doesn't apply...
Tobasco Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2003
Posts: 2,809

Chris, most hispanics are democrats. I would bet that hispanics in the Republican party back him. On Hannity & Colmes I've seen support for him by hispanic guests on the show.

What makes him more right wing, than lets say Ashcroft, who is concidered pretty right wing and religious?

He is doing a good job, even though democrats tried thier best to stop him from being appointed by Bush.

Mag
Homebrew Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 02-11-2003
Posts: 11,885
Hey Mag,
Need to check your demographics.
Your statement, "Most hispanics are Democrats" Is not based in fact. Over 60% of hispanics vote Republican. They are much more conservative than other minorities.
Sorry
Had to say something there.
Homebrew
Homebrew Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 02-11-2003
Posts: 11,885
One question though??
What exactly is his current job??
He's not or never has been a judge?
Homebrew
Tobasco Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2003
Posts: 2,809

You may be
Tobasco Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2003
Posts: 2,809

Homebrew, I dont think you are correct about that.

Where did you get that info? In California hispanics are mostly democrats. Where are you from?

Please send me a link of this fact, I would like to see it. I am hispanic, and dont believe that one. I am also a lonely hispanic republican where I live. I'm in San Jose Ca.

Mag
Homebrew Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 02-11-2003
Posts: 11,885
Hey Mag.
You are right about California.
I am talking about nationwide. The numbers I am quoting, were from the exit polls of the last election.
California was the anomoly. 62% of hispanic voters, in California, voted Democrat. But as a whole, nationwide, 60% of hispanics voted republican.
In Florida, 72% of hispanics voted Republican.
My numbers come from rueters poll after the 2002 election.
Later Homebrew
Tobasco Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2003
Posts: 2,809
Homebrew

I'm not questioning that in this election, hispanics voted more for Bush.

What I am saying is that hispanic voters across the country, are overwhelmingly registered as democrats. Thats what I mean. I really dont even think it is close.

Mag
Homebrew Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 02-11-2003
Posts: 11,885
Hey Mag,
I respectfully disagree. Hispanics are more conservative than any other minority. The numbers I quoted have nothing to do with the presidential election, but with the mid term election.
Later
Homebrew
Tobasco Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2003
Posts: 2,809

Homebrew, I will look into your figures. I still gotta see it to believe it.

The numbers you quote from exit polls, reflect how someone voted at that particular election. But I'm speaking of voter registration stats.

Mag
Homebrew Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 02-11-2003
Posts: 11,885
Hey Mag,
I think you are going to be suprised.
Later
Homebrew
Spiny Norman Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 09-04-2002
Posts: 899
Gentlemen, I have been all over the web on this one. (Census Bureau, Hispanic voter sites, GOP site). If someone is collecting data on national voter registration by race and party line, they sure are keeping it to themselves. Though I had a lead at Johns Hopkins University but hit a dead link.





#^&@! I hate getting stumped!
Tobasco Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2003
Posts: 2,809
Spiny Norman, thanks for trying. I just got online. I'm gonna still give it a shot. I'll post my findings.

Mag
tailgater Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
mag is right.
Mostly dems.
But they don't always vote that way.
Try: http://www.hacer.org/current/Hispanic.php
Tobasco Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2003
Posts: 2,809
Thanks tailgater. I've never heard of this Latin America News Report. They look to be nuetral in there reporting of these statistics though.

Homebrew, I pasted a portion of the article that mentions what weve been talking about, but you should read the whole article. Here is a portion of it.

"The poll of 1,329 registered Hispanic voters, 838 non-Hispanic whites and 136 non-Hispanic African-Americans was conducted by telephone from April to June and has a margin of error of 3.6 percentage points. It is part of a broader survey of Latinos in the United States that will be released in December.

Among those interviewed, 45 percent said they were United States citizens who were registered to vote. Of those, nearly half called themselves Democrats, one-fifth said they were Republicans and another fifth labeled themselves independent."

Not my source but, I believe it. Well, Homebrew its been nice debating you. I think this is a pretty close estimate of what I thought.

This is not absolute proof. So maybe you can come up with better evidence. But until then I'm going with this.

Mag
Homebrew Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 02-11-2003
Posts: 11,885
Hey Mag, I'll accept these numbers for now. I'll keep an eye on this, as I know you will. Interesting article though:-)
Later brother of the leaf.
Homebrew
DrMaddVibe Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,516
Rush made a valid point yesterday.

The Democrats haven't actually said it's a fillabuster, so call them to the floor for a vote! Maybe they have the necessary votes to keep Estrada out. Thereby cementing in the public's mind that the Democrats are the party of exclusionary tactics! If they do have the votes, then all they have to do(because they control the floor!)is put it to another vote, and another one, and another one. Effectively showing to the world time and again that they don't want a Hispanic on the Supreme Court. What's next for them? What race won't they like now? They want Estrada to go on the record with a hypothetical case and produce his ruling. That's absurd logic!

Rush IS right!
Homebrew Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 02-11-2003
Posts: 11,885
Yep Rush is RIGHT,
A little to the RIGHT of Hitler and Attila the hun.
Sorry if this is construed as a thread Jack. I just don't understand how anyone can believe Lush Rimjob.
Later
Homebrew
DrMaddVibe Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,516
Well, instead of name calling...argue with the points that I listed that came from his show!

You can do it!
DrMaddVibe Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,516
Still waiting...
Spiny Norman Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 09-04-2002
Posts: 899
Oh no! Rush would never launch a personal attack..........

Some of the personal attacks by Rush Limbaugh

LIMBAUGH: Limbaugh constantly tells his audience that he doesn't make personal or ad hominem attacks. To a caller who had a problem with his personalized attacks, Limbaugh responded with a denial: "Give me a specific example: who, what, when, where, and what exactly did I say?" (Radio show, 2/18/94)

REALITY: One hour before that call, Limbaugh was telling his audience that a 5,000-year-old man found buried in ice--pictured on the cover of Time magazine--was really Sally Jesse Raphael: "This is just what Sally Jesse Raphael looks like without makeup!"

MORE REALITY:(10/17/93) this incident from Limbaugh's TV show--"Here is a Limbaugh joke:
Everyone knows the Clintons have a cat. Socks is the White House cat. But did you know there is a White House dog?" And he puts up a picture of Chelsea Clinton. Chelsea Clinton was 13 years old at the time.

LIMBAUGH: Assailing a journalist who had criticized Nixon: "Michael Gartner, portraying himself as a balanced, ojective journalist with years and years of experience faking events, and then reporting them as news--and doing so with the express hope of destroying General Motors in one case and destroying businesses that cut down trees, the timber industry, in another." (TV show, 4/27/94)

REALITY: Gartner, the NBC News president who resigned in the wake of the GM truck explosion episode on NBC's Dateline, had no hands-on role in it--nor had he expressed a hope of destroying any company.

LIMBAUGH: Equally accurate when denouncing a fellow conservative, he said of right-wing journalist Cliff Kincaid: "He's written all kinds of pieces about how I don't go make speeches for free, for the cause.... He's just one more of these little gnats out there trying to sink a Boeing 747 that's leaving him in a cloud of dust." (Radio show, 11/19/93)

REALITY: Kincaid's only published piece on whether Limbaugh does speeches "for the cause" was in Human Events (7/27/91): "He does his bit for conservatives when the movement calls. He waived his fees, for instance, when he emceed at roasts for Oliver North and Paul Weyrich and addressed the National Right to Life convention."

DrMaddVibe Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,516
Spiny, what does that have to do with the Estrada confirmation?

You don't have to agree with the guy, but as I've found in the past(as well as now!!!), it's hard to come out on top when common-sense answers are explained. It looks like all of the surfing you did shows that he's not going to lie down in the middle of a road. If you come swinging at him you better know your FACTS!


Brew...STILL thinking?
tailgater Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Spiny;
Where were you going with that?
DrMaddVibe Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,516
Remember all the noise associated with Clarence Thomas? He hasn't always sided with the Republican view, but then that's really what being on the Supreme Court is all about!

He turned out to be a great voice of reason! Now, Sandra on the otherhand...
Spiny Norman Offline
#30 Posted:
Joined: 09-04-2002
Posts: 899
"""Spiny, what does that have to do with the Estrada confirmation? """

Not much, but you did bring him and his views into it to strengthen your case. When you took offense at HOMEBREW's name calling of Rush, I fely it was important to point out that he is every bit as guilty of it as anyone else. (Those who live in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones.)

"""he's not going to lie down in the middle of a road. """

Bummer. I guess I will have to take the steel spikes off the car's tires now.

"""If you come swinging at him you better know your FACTS! """

Rush Limbaugh wouldn't know a fact if he were lying in the middle of the road an it drove over him
with steel spikes!

"""Spiny;
Where were you going with that? """

Off the thread I suppose. For that, I apologize. Please return to the topic at hand.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#31 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,516
Spiny, thanks for adding NOTHING to the fact that the Dems are blocking the nomination of a very qualified person.

It was a point that was brought out on Rush's show. One that would work. The mere mention of his name was enough to "scare" you two into name-calling.

If you have some other reason why Estrada shouldn't be nominated then lets hear them.
Spiny Norman Offline
#32 Posted:
Joined: 09-04-2002
Posts: 899
I have four reasons.....

Enrique Moreno,
Jorge Rangel,
Christine Arguello
and Richard Paez.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#33 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,516
So you don't approve of the person! That's different!

It's about power and influence. Sometimes the right people don't know the right people.
Spiny Norman Offline
#34 Posted:
Joined: 09-04-2002
Posts: 899
I don't for a minute believe that this nomination is being held up due to his nationality. I do believe that it's due to his ideology. (Or what we know of it.) This was also the case with the 4 nominees I mentioned earlier.
We have gotten to the point that only those whose viewpoints are "middle of the road" are likely to get a court appointment. (Maybe that's for the best.) Do I think it's right that it's being held up over party lines? No, nor was it right when the GOP did it to the Clinton nominees. Hey, it's revenge pure and simple. Dems did it to Bork so the Publicans did it to Moreno, Arguello, Paez among many others so the Dems are holding up Estrada among others.
Perhaps someday, our elected officials ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE will stop acting like spoiled first graders are start to do what is right for this country. .....................Na.

The only ones to suffer are those seeking fair and swift justice.
Homebrew Offline
#35 Posted:
Joined: 02-11-2003
Posts: 11,885
Hey guys,
The reason I haven't replied?? I am hiking the ozarks highland trail. I have to wait till I finish each leg,of the trip, to get internet access.
In response to Maddvibe, When you get your "facts" from somebody that actually has some credibility. I will respond. Rush Limbaugh has been caught fabricating facts. When called to task, he said that he was "an entertainer" and didn't have to support his facts. Go find some real facts to quote. Most people here have an education.
Later
Homebrew
DrMaddVibe Offline
#36 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,516
Facts?!?

All I did was say that he raised a valid point. If the Dems are conducting a fillibuster(which they haven't confirmed!)then they should hold them accountable and hold a vote.

It would be political suicide to continue vote after vote after vote to NOT confirm him. After all it's the Dems that throw the "race card", not me!

Personally, I don't think they have the desire to deny Estrada. They're posturing. When the fallout happens there's going to be one hell of a rush to the microphones and cameras to protect thier own hides on this matter.

Those are the facts.
Homebrew Offline
#37 Posted:
Joined: 02-11-2003
Posts: 11,885
Yes Madd,
It will be interesting to see how this works out.
It could still go either way.
Later
Homebrew
Tobasco Offline
#38 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2003
Posts: 2,809

Today, I heard that there has never been, in history, a fillibuster on a nominie of the repeals court. Why Estrada? This is not fair. His record is flawless.

Mag
usahog Offline
#39 Posted:
Joined: 12-06-1999
Posts: 22,691
it is called Distraction... the Dems are doing there Best to distract the administration from whats on the plate... Iraq!!!

Hog
Homebrew Offline
#40 Posted:
Joined: 02-11-2003
Posts: 11,885
I must disagree.
The Estrada nomination, is being filabustered, because he refuses to answer questions on his views on constitutional questions. He is not a judge. Never has been. So he doesn't have a record of decisions.
Most Judicial nominations, have experience as Judges in the federal circut courts. They have a record, of their decisions on important cases. Estrada has no such record. The administration says, and some of you guys Parrot, that Estrada is highly qualified. But refuse to release information regarding his alleged qualifications. He has also refused to answer questions, about his qualifications. I repeat, How many of you would hire a man who, at the job interview, refused to answer your questions, pertaining to their job qualifications?
Any of you guys who would, let me know, so I can avoid buying stock in your buisness.
Later
Homebrew
p.s. It will be tonight before I can respond. I have another 22 mile hike today.
Homebrew Offline
#41 Posted:
Joined: 02-11-2003
Posts: 11,885
some food for thought.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/02/20/findlaw.analysis.estrada.nomination/index.html
Users browsing this topic
Guest