100........
-
Custom Software Development, email: woj#at#wojfun#.#com to discuss details or skype: wojl2000 or gchat: wojfun or telegram: wojl2000
Affiliate program tools: Hosted Galleries Manager Banner Manager Video Manager
Wordpress Affiliate Plugin Pic/Movie of the Day Fansign Generator Zip Manager -
100 fillibusters
.Comment
-
LOL you couldn't have been more than 1/2 a second ahead of meOriginally posted by woj
.Comment
-
Aren't you talking to a bot?Originally posted by mardigrasLOL you couldn't have been more than 1/2 a second ahead of meComment
-
Could be. I just figured he was sorting by post countOriginally posted by Mr.Fiction
.Comment
-
Sometimes even half a second makes a difference...Originally posted by mardigrasLOL you couldn't have been more than 1/2 a second ahead of me
Custom Software Development, email: woj#at#wojfun#.#com to discuss details or skype: wojl2000 or gchat: wojfun or telegram: wojl2000
Affiliate program tools: Hosted Galleries Manager Banner Manager Video Manager
Wordpress Affiliate Plugin Pic/Movie of the Day Fansign Generator Zip ManagerComment
-
True datOriginally posted by wojSometimes even half a second makes a difference...
.Comment
-
Originally posted by Mr.Fiction
Of course I'm against that. Do you understand the point of "The UNITED STATES of America"?
It is called that, and not just America, because it is recognised that each local area has it's own issues, and needs it's own power to fix it's own problems and have it's own voice on issues.
We are NOT a country with a massively powerful federal goverment that can just do whatever it wants.
I refer mostly to the 10th amendment, of course. It was recognized at the time of the founders that each state had to have it's own rights and it's own power, because a simply majority across the board would NOT represent the will of each state as it's own entity.Michael Sperber / Acella Financial LLC/ Online Payment Processing
[email protected] / http://Acellafinancial.com/
ICQ 177961090 / Tel +1 909 NET BILL / Skype msperberComment
-
Then you must support the use of the filibuster, which protects the rights of the minority in American politics?Originally posted by Mr.Fiction
Comment
-
People keep throwing around the word "minority" like it's just a few, not almost halfOriginally posted by Mr.FictionThen you must support the use of the filibuster, which protects the rights of the minority in American politics?
.Comment
-
Originally posted by mardigrasPeople keep throwing around the word "minority" like it's just a few, not almost half
Just assume for a minute that Hillary gets elected.
Are you positive that she would nominate conservatives?
Thats basically what this boils down to. One political party lost power and are playing politics and asking to public to support them in their effort to make The President of the United States nominate people that are not in his political party.Comment
-
Originally posted by mardigrasPeople keep throwing around the word "minority" like it's just a few, not almost half
Actually, we tried to discuss the definition of "majority" and "minority". It is not a coinidence that one party is trying to change the definition of majority.Comment
-
I have much more faith in Hillary Clinton nominating a conservative judge than GWB ever nominating a liberal oneOriginally posted by FunForOne
Actually I think she would be moderate in her nominations..Comment
-
Originally posted by mardigras
Michael Sperber / Acella Financial LLC/ Online Payment Processing
[email protected] / http://Acellafinancial.com/
ICQ 177961090 / Tel +1 909 NET BILL / Skype msperberComment
-
Does that mean you think she is going to play moderate all the way up to election, then become a radical NOW feminazi?Originally posted by sperbonzo 
.Comment
-
Originally posted by sperbonzo
you can't be seriousComment
-
Why is it, you think it's a Republican characteristic? The Democrats have always done it. Now, you're upset that the other side is doing the same thing?
Get a life and go back to school. You missed something in your History classes.Comment
-
Originally posted by MickeyG
you can't be serious
I AM serious. Do you realise that the rights and jusidictions of state and local goverments over the federal goverment in the US FAR FAR outweigh the powers of state and local goverments in any other country?
Try doing some comparisons.... In the every other country, the central goverment makes almost ALL the rules. state and local goverments have almost no power at all.Michael Sperber / Acella Financial LLC/ Online Payment Processing
[email protected] / http://Acellafinancial.com/
ICQ 177961090 / Tel +1 909 NET BILL / Skype msperberComment
-
The fillibuster is a completely valid tool and if they think a nominee is such a poor choice, then they should be allowed to fillibuster. Either party.
The president can send them 500 more nominees if he wants to. Surely there are 2 others that would not be so divisive.43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.
Comment
-
no. no i am not.Comment
-
the stupidity of this board knows no bounds.Originally posted by mardigras
its no wonder most of you still live with mommy.
I'm sure its already been said but what they are doing is preventing the democrats from changing the law so that they (who no longer have power because many of them were voted out by the people) can hold up important decisions.
you never saw these horse shit tactics when the republicans were in the minority.I'm not a dinosaur, I'm a crocodile. I've seen dinosaurs come and go and I'm left unimpressed.Comment
-
It's a new kind of Nazi taking over,
It's the new Gestapo come to call,
It's over you their eyes will hover,
Cause you are the ones they're coming to maul.Comment
-
shit, that proves it.Originally posted by Redrob
song lyrics.
you're 7 aren't you?I'm not a dinosaur, I'm a crocodile. I've seen dinosaurs come and go and I'm left unimpressed.Comment
-
Originally posted by mardigrasI have much more faith in Hillary Clinton nominating a conservative judge than GWB ever nominating a liberal one
Actually I think she would be moderate in her nominations.
Well, at least you are not worried about your credibility.Comment
-
You guys do realize, or course, that these exact senate voting rules, have been changed 4 times in that last 200 years. The last time was in 1976, by the democrats, before that was 1917, by the Democrats.
These aren't "LAWS", they are just the rules of the senate, and they have always been open to change. Just because the dems are not getting their own way on this, they are crying and shrieking that this is a change of the constitution.... but it's not. Don't believe the hype
Michael Sperber / Acella Financial LLC/ Online Payment Processing
[email protected] / http://Acellafinancial.com/
ICQ 177961090 / Tel +1 909 NET BILL / Skype msperberComment
-
What amazes me about this thread is that we actually have people advocating for the republican position on a porn webmasters board. Maybe they don?t realize what this is about. It is about the Republicans installing extreme right wing judges on the Federal court for life. I can only conclude the people arguing for the Bush position want the new 2257 rules to go into effect and want more obscenity prosecutions. It is like chickens voting for Col. Sanders all over again.Comment
-
Originally posted by Kingfish
Republicans are idiots.Comment
-
Imagine a political entity changing laws to get what they want! Oh the shame of it all!
Jeez people how you can show so much chagrine over such a common practice is beyond me.
Like Republicans invented it or something. lolPromote Wildmatch, ImLive, Sexier.com, and more!!
ALWAYS THE HIGHEST PAYOUTS: Big Bux/ImLive SIGNUP ON NOW!!!
Put some PUSSYCA$H in your pocket. ICQ me at: 31024634Comment
-
Originally posted by Kingfish
If I'm not mistaken, the 2257 rules are basically in place to prohibit or at least deter child pornagraphy. Even on GFY, the porn webmaster board, child porn is not accecpted.
The first time a democratic politician gets elected on the platform of the necessity for more child porn, then you may have a point.
I'm a porn webmaster, the 2257 rules will certainly be a headache. I'm also a father, I understand them.
I think they will change the industry, I think it will be more profitable for some. I plan to be one of those.
Getting mad a politicians for attempting to deter the outlets of child porn is equivalent to getting mad at the city council for having to stop at all the red lights.
It is a neat concept that democratic politicians count on support from people based on issues that they wont publically stand for. What you guys are telling me is that you will vote for a candidate in the next election who is most likely to assist the child pornagraphers profit from their "art".
Those are going to be interesting campaign signs. Which party is crooked?
Just my opinion.Comment
-
Then you don't understand what is going on.Originally posted by FunForOne
I just got off the phone with someone who has a friend at the justice department - so this is secondhand information and may not be correct.
But from what I was told, they are setting up offices now for people to do nothing but scan for 2257 info on websites. Nothing surprising there.
However they are also supposedly instructing agents to MAKE ARRESTS FOR CLERICAL ERRORS.
If an url is spelled wrong, they want to arrest you.
If the forms are not alphabetized correctly, they want to arrest you.
This has nothing to do with preventing child porn. This has everything to do with simple harassment.
I would like to emphasize again this is only secondhand information
Comment
-
Originally posted by AmateurFlix
I'm not a lawyer. I'm waiting on someone credible to advise me about the 2257 rules. Dont take this as a political statment, but unfortunatley there are to many people and orgainziations that simple make to much money from opposing the president and therefore in the past have skewed issued to conform to their "efforts."
One thing that I question is how the term "obscenity" got in with the 2257 regulations?
I think we are basically on the same page. You are talking about the enforcement of the 2257 laws. I am talking about purpose and intent of the laws.
If I understand correctly at this point, I can legally publically produce and host pictures of nude people as long as I have the correct 2257 info.
That is not being taken away, however, I can not legally "produde" and host such pictures if I dont have the necessary documentation regarding the age of the people in the pictures.
My rights as a producer have not been taken away. I, as a producer, have just been given more responsiblity to assist in the enforcement of child protection agencies to find and prosecute child pornography.Comment
-
Republicans constantly blocked Clinton's nominees from getting an up or down vote on the floor.Originally posted by 12clicks
Just because you didn't see it on Fox, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Comment
-
You won't admit that what the Bush administration is doing is an attack on free speech, but anyone who points out that it's an attack on free speech is just doing it because they hate Bush?Originally posted by FunForOne
Talk to any free speech lawyer in the country and they will tell you that these laws have nothing to do with protecting children. They are a blatant attack on free speech.
If a single legal website shuts down because of these regulations, then free speech has been damaged and children have not been protected.
You are so blinded by your brainwashing that you are afraid to see the truth when it's right in front of you.
Just admit that Bush is attacking free speech. Rush Limbaugh doesn't read this board, he won't get mad at you.
Comment
-
thru filibuster?Originally posted by Mr.FictionRepublicans constantly blocked Clinton's nominees from getting an up or down vote on the floor.
Just because you didn't see it on Fox, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
wrong child.
go ahead and post your linkI'm not a dinosaur, I'm a crocodile. I've seen dinosaurs come and go and I'm left unimpressed.Comment
-
You certainly know how to avoid addressing an issue head on don?t you? The new 2257 regulations have nothing to do with child porn. They are simply a harassment scheme or a tool that can be used against people selling erotic adult material to adults because right-wingers don?t want adults to have the free will to look at dirty pictures and videos. The original 2257 was designed to get at the problem of people that can pass for 18 doing porn with fake documents or no documents. It was never designed to get at people who produce child porn for pedophiles. If you want to keep lying to yourself it is all about child porn go ahead.Originally posted by FunForOneComment
-
Did Republicans or did they not stop Clinton judges from getting an up or down vote on the floor of the Senate?Originally posted by 12clicks
If you want a link proving that Republicans have filibustered judges:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200505180004
Comment
-
Newsflash: judges aren't supposed to represent political parties, or even political visions. They are supposed to interpret the law to their best ability, not to their hearts' desires.Originally posted by FunForOne
What you seem to be implying goes directly against the separation of powers, and would make a mockery out of the entire judicial branch of government./(bb|[^b]{2})/Comment
-
Originally posted by punkworld
I couldn't agree more. Judges can have personal affiliates with political parties, but precide in a partisan way.
You and I should ask the democrats why they are fillabustering to get more "moderate" judges?
Why do they need liberal judges?Comment
-
Moderate means liberal to you? That makes you an extremist.Originally posted by FunForOne
If both parties have to agree on a judge, then that judge will likely be moderate, or at least appear to be to enough people on both sides to get approved.
Why do you want extreme right wing judges to get approved?
Wouldn't the country benefit from having Bush nominate moderate judges, rather than the few extreme right wing ones that Democrats have blocked?Comment
-
You _don't_ want judges to preside in a partisan way, that's the whole point.Originally posted by FunForOne
Don't even try to use this ridiculous argument.Originally posted by FunForOne
When a president nominates only judges who show very clear political leanings that are much like his own, it is obvious that he is in fact hoping that they will use their positions to promote the beliefs behind their political leanings.
(you could deny this, but in that case the president only nominating judges from his own political corner would be a very strong indication of political favoritism, which would make an even worse mockery of the entire judicial branch of the government)
Now, in case you don't know, "moderate" does not mean the same thing as "liberal", so they don't need liberal judges - they want moderate judges.
And why they want moderate judges instead of what they consider radical ones should be obvious. People with radical beliefs are much more likely to be biased and not to give equal consideration to all points of view than people with moderate beliefs. Would you want to go on trial with the entire jury consisting of al qaeda members?/(bb|[^b]{2})/Comment
-
ahhh, a liberal propaganda page. good source.Originally posted by Mr.FictionDid Republicans or did they not stop Clinton judges from getting an up or down vote on the floor of the Senate?
If you want a link proving that Republicans have filibustered judges:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200505180004
the only judgeds that have ever been filibustered were done with by partisan approval. (even the dems didn't want them)
keep trying though.I'm not a dinosaur, I'm a crocodile. I've seen dinosaurs come and go and I'm left unimpressed.Comment
-
^^^ Makes the most sense so farOriginally posted by MrFierce
Sig too big!Comment
-
The topic of this thread was not intended to be about the use or abuse of fillibusters but about a narrow majority insisting on 100% and shutting out a nearly half minority if they don't get it. You can't tell me after all of the judges GWB got approved the 2 in contention are the last available for him to nominate.Originally posted by 12clicksahhh, a liberal propaganda page. good source.
the only judgeds that have ever been filibustered were done with by partisan approval. (even the dems didn't want them)
keep trying though.
You can say boo hoo and poo poo it all off all you want 12clicks, but if the tables were turned and Democrats had a slight majority and had every intentions of using it to force through a small number of judges that Republicans had a problem with you would be the most rabid person in here
.Comment
-
Conservatives near lock on US courts
This is why Republicans are fighting for every extremely conservative judge possible.Republican appointees now constitute a majority of judges on 10 of the nation's 13 federal appeals courts. As few as three more lifetime appointments on key courts would tip the balance in favor of GOP appointees on all but one appeals court - the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco..Comment
-
That is an interesting point to make. When you listen to the conservatives whine about liberal activist judges it is important to remember that for the most part they are complaining about moderate Republicans. These six nominees that we are talking about are about as extreme as it gets and are outside of what even most people would consider to be mainstream for a conservative Republican. One of them commented minimum wage was unconstitutional, and another one was so nutty that she was often rebuked by the other conservatives on the court she sat on for not following the law. These folks are Reverend James Dodson and Pat Robertson?s dream team.Originally posted by mardigrasComment
-
No wonder they call you "Mr Fiction".Originally posted by Mr.FictionDid Republicans or did they not stop Clinton judges from getting an up or down vote on the floor of the Senate?
If you want a link proving that Republicans have filibustered judges:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200505180004
George Soros, the same clown that contributed gazillions to the ineffective "MoveON" pac, is behind MediaMatters...
It is hardly objective or accurate...
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_l...0405050850.asp
unless you are a loonie lefty like Fiction and his other cohorts on GFYComment
-
When Clinton was president, many of his nominees were never even given the 'courtesy' of a public hearing...let a lone filibustered. The fact is, far more of Clinton's nominees were blocked by Senate Republican leaders than have been Bush's by Democrats. The biggest difference, you didn't hear much about them because they never had the committee hearings, so the nation's attention was never focused on them.
And, speaking of the rights of the minority, the Democrats in the Senate actually represent more people than the Republicans.
BrutalComment
-
really? that doesn't sound anything like your thread title:Originally posted by mardigras
Originally posted by mardigras
this is irrelevant. He chose them. He needn't choose others because the bitter, losing power aqnd votes by the day minority want their pound of flesh.Originally posted by mardigras
wrong again.Originally posted by mardigrasYou can say boo hoo and poo poo it all off all you want 12clicks, but if the tables were turned and Democrats had a slight majority and had every intentions of using it to force through a small number of judges that Republicans had a problem with you would be the most rabid person in here
You dopey liberals see things through your eyes instead of the eyes of the Senators.
There are many many moderate republican senators in congress. Imagining they would vote yes on someone undeserving is imagining what *you* would do, not they.
And because you've been fed so much liberal horse shit, you don't even understand what a conservative judge is. Its someone who doesn't invent law but abides by the constitution and when there is doubt, respects the will of the people.I'm not a dinosaur, I'm a crocodile. I've seen dinosaurs come and go and I'm left unimpressed.Comment
-
that *might* be correct but the democrats have 100% of the ability to block them in the same way the republicans did.Originally posted by BrutalMaster
irrelevant.Originally posted by BrutalMaster
how quaint.Originally posted by BrutalMaster
Speaking of the rights of the majority, republicans in the whitehouse and congress represent more people than the democrats.I'm not a dinosaur, I'm a crocodile. I've seen dinosaurs come and go and I'm left unimpressed.Comment
-
indeed, once rational people saw the travisty of the 9th court of appeals, they realized something had to be done.Originally posted by mardigrasI'm not a dinosaur, I'm a crocodile. I've seen dinosaurs come and go and I'm left unimpressed.Comment
Comment