Repubs block Hagle's nomination

Repubs block Hagle's nomination

Posted in the Sikeston Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Local

Saint Louis, MO

#1 Feb 14, 2013
For the first time in our country's history, a cabinet nominee's confirmation was blocked by a filibuster by Republicans. Many, including Lindsay Graham, went to great lengths to claim he would not filibuster, then voted no on the clothure vote...which, by the way, had 58 yea votes. What the hell is wrong with these people. Hagle is emminently qualified, a wounded/decorated veteran, and a freakin' Republican. Once upon a time, the Senate was a haven for educated erudite statesmen that considered their office one for those of honor and intelligence. Truly sad.

Since: Jul 12

Jackson, MO

#2 Feb 14, 2013
That's peanuts. Ever heard the name Bork?
Mr T

Lees Summit, MO

#3 Feb 14, 2013
Local wrote:
For the first time in our country's history, a cabinet nominee's confirmation was blocked by a filibuster by Republicans. Many, including Lindsay Graham, went to great lengths to claim he would not filibuster, then voted no on the clothure vote...which, by the way, had 58 yea votes. What the hell is wrong with these people. Hagle is emminently qualified, a wounded/decorated veteran, and a freakin' Republican. Once upon a time, the Senate was a haven for educated erudite statesmen that considered their office one for those of honor and intelligence. Truly sad.
Yawn!!!!
Local

Saint Louis, MO

#4 Feb 14, 2013
Bork? Sure...he was Solicitor General under Nixon...he was appointed acting attorney general after everyone else resigned due to Nixon's attempt to fire special watergate prosecutor archibal cox. No one else would fire cox except bork. It was called the "Saturday night massacre". Later ruled illegal.
Not

United States

#5 Feb 14, 2013
Local wrote:
Bork? Sure...he was Solicitor General under Nixon...he was appointed acting attorney general after everyone else resigned due to Nixon's attempt to fire special watergate prosecutor archibal cox. No one else would fire cox except bork. It was called the "Saturday night massacre". Later ruled illegal.
Hahaha

Since: Jul 12

Jackson, MO

#6 Feb 14, 2013
Local wrote:
Bork? Sure...he was Solicitor General under Nixon...he was appointed acting attorney general after everyone else resigned due to Nixon's attempt to fire special watergate prosecutor archibal cox. No one else would fire cox except bork. It was called the "Saturday night massacre". Later ruled illegal.
My point was that the filibuster was nothing compared to what 'open minded, compassionate, tollerant' liberals did to Robert Bork.

Bork had become a sacrificial lamb, his crumbled nomination serving to alert America to the legal left’s manipulation of the constitution in order to win court victories where they couldn’t possibly win at the ballot box.

Americans learned, for example, that when liberals told them Judge Bork believed there was no “right to privacy” in the Constitution, what they meant was that “Bork does not believe the Constitution provides a right to stick a fork in a baby’s head.”

They learned that the constitution simply doesn’t say anything at all about the hot-button issues of the day – abortion, contraception, pornography, sodomy and so on. Those were supposed to be left to citizens voting in their own states, in a process known as “democracy.” Conservatives always assumed they had to win at the ballot box. Liberals figured out that if they could get zealots on the Supreme Court to invent “constitutional rights,” they could skip voting and win by judicial fiat every time.

Since liberals couldn’t just come out and say that they hated democracy—where they lose—and preferred brute political force—where they could win—they accused Bork of being a closet slavery-supporter. Sen. Teddy Kennedy, who killed a girl at Chappaquiddick, uncorked his despicable “Judge Bork’s America” speech on the Senate floor within an hour of Bork’s nomination, accusing Bork of hoping to bring back segregated lunch counters and consigning women to “back-alley abortions.”

Bork’s name became a verb, meaning to smear a person with ugly slanders for political gain. The sleeping giant of sensible Americans woke up, angry that they had been tricked into fearing Bork. Next time, they’d fight back.

When Clarence Thomas was “borked” a few years later – accused of vile sexual harassment out of a Ku Klux Klan playbook – Americans exploded in rage. The truth won out and Thomas now goes by “Justice Clarence Thomas.”

Conservatives wouldn’t win all court fights, but at least they became aware they were in a war. Finally, there were two sides fighting. In this way, Bork’s defeat may have been more valuable to the country than his becoming a justice.

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/12/19/ann-cou...
the only real usa first

Jackson, MO

#7 Feb 15, 2013
A Conservative wrote:
<quoted text>
My point was that the filibuster was nothing compared to what 'open minded, compassionate, tollerant' liberals did to Robert Bork.
Bork had become a sacrificial lamb, his crumbled nomination serving to alert America to the legal left’s manipulation of the constitution in order to win court victories where they couldn’t possibly win at the ballot box.
Americans learned, for example, that when liberals told them Judge Bork believed there was no “right to privacy” in the Constitution, what they meant was that “Bork does not believe the Constitution provides a right to stick a fork in a baby’s head.”
They learned that the constitution simply doesn’t say anything at all about the hot-button issues of the day – abortion, contraception, pornography, sodomy and so on. Those were supposed to be left to citizens voting in their own states, in a process known as “democracy.” Conservatives always assumed they had to win at the ballot box. Liberals figured out that if they could get zealots on the Supreme Court to invent “constitutional rights,” they could skip voting and win by judicial fiat every time.
Since liberals couldn’t just come out and say that they hated democracy—where they lose—and preferred brute political force—where they could win—they accused Bork of being a closet slavery-supporter. Sen. Teddy Kennedy, who killed a girl at Chappaquiddick, uncorked his despicable “Judge Bork’s America” speech on the Senate floor within an hour of Bork’s nomination, accusing Bork of hoping to bring back segregated lunch counters and consigning women to “back-alley abortions.”
Bork’s name became a verb, meaning to smear a person with ugly slanders for political gain. The sleeping giant of sensible Americans woke up, angry that they had been tricked into fearing Bork. Next time, they’d fight back.
When Clarence Thomas was “borked” a few years later – accused of vile sexual harassment out of a Ku Klux Klan playbook – Americans exploded in rage. The truth won out and Thomas now goes by “Justice Clarence Thomas.”
Conservatives wouldn’t win all court fights, but at least they became aware they were in a war. Finally, there were two sides fighting. In this way, Bork’s defeat may have been more valuable to the country than his becoming a justice.
http://www.humanevents.com/2012/12/19/ann-cou...
keep it up, it is this kind of things that are going to give us the house in 14
grisgris

De Soto, MO

#8 Feb 15, 2013
Boy, howdy, Hagel is paying the price for being the only real Maverick in the modern Republican Party.

He was critical of Bush's war in Iraq, and he spoke out. They'll never forgive him for it. He thought more of serving his country than his party.

But then he would. He's a decorated combat veteran and a patriot.

bufu

Bonnots Mill, MO

#9 Feb 15, 2013
Bork got a vote. Thomas got a vote. The republicans are preventing a vote.
What

Park Hills, MO

#10 Feb 15, 2013
grisgris wrote:
Boy, howdy, Hagel is paying the price for being the only real Maverick in the modern Republican Party.
He was critical of Bush's war in Iraq, and he spoke out. They'll never forgive him for it. He thought more of serving his country than his party.
But then he would. He's a decorated combat veteran and a patriot.
Very true, what better Secretary than someone who actually was a combat infantryman and knows the dangers and affects of war. So he spoke out about the Jewish influence in congress, that's true also. Bush thought nothing about getting us into war, of course he was a weekend warrior and may or may not have gone to meetings. He had the chance to volunteer for active duty but chose not to, partying sounded better to him at the time but there's been a lot of body bags sent home since then. I know Congress went along but doctored intelligence and downright lies is what Congress heard, and don't tell me Congress hears the same intelligence that the President does, that's not true.
Robert A.

United States

#11 Feb 15, 2013
What wrote:
<quoted text>Very true, what better Secretary than someone who actually was a combat infantryman and knows the dangers and affects of war. So he spoke out about the Jewish influence in congress, that's true also. Bush thought nothing about getting us into war, of course he was a weekend warrior and may or may not have gone to meetings. He had the chance to volunteer for active duty but chose not to, partying sounded better to him at the time but there's been a lot of body bags sent home since then. I know Congress went along but doctored intelligence and downright lies is what Congress heard, and don't tell me Congress hears the same intelligence that the President does, that's not true.
Did you serve our country? What branch? Rank? Length of time?
now that is funny

United States

#12 Feb 15, 2013
"chance to volunteer for active duty"

What branch of the military did Obama serve in?
bufu

Jefferson City, MO

#13 Feb 15, 2013
Bush was a supporter of the war in VN while he was avoiding actually going there.

Obama has not served in the military, however he is in command of the armed forces.

Since: Jul 12

Jackson, MO

#14 Feb 15, 2013
the only real usa first wrote:
<quoted text>keep it up, it is this kind of things that are going to give us the house in 14
In your dreams.

Since: Jul 12

Jackson, MO

#15 Feb 15, 2013
Quote @ Robert A: " Bush thought nothing about getting us into war, of course he was a weekend warrior and may or may not have gone to meetings. He had the chance to volunteer for active duty but chose not to, partying sounded better to him at the time...."

Exactly the same thing could be said about Clinton with these exceptions:

Clinton thought nothing about placing American soldiers in harm's way in Bosnia.

Clinton never served in ANY branch of the military, so he could party every weekend instead of 'going to meetings' and serving his country one weekend a month and two weeks annually.

In a letter to the ROTC instructor at ASU explaining why he wouldn't participate in a program that he had signed up for that was keeping him out of Vietnam, Clinton wrote, "so many fine people have come to find themselves still loving their country but loathing the military"
What

Park Hills, MO

#16 Feb 15, 2013
[QUOTE who="Robert A."]<quoted text>
Did you serve our country? What branch? Rank? Length of time?[/QUOTE]Yes I did. I was drafted into the Army, qualified for Officer Training School. Was commissioned in 1967 then on to airborne training. Served two tours in Vietnam, one in infantry as Lt., one in artillery as Capt. Spent six years in altogether. I'm very proud of my service, especially my time in the infantry. That's why I admire Sen. Hagel and think he wouldn't jump at the chance to invade another country without exploring other options because he's seen first hand the horrors of war. I'm a moderate and have voted Democratic and Republican, I "try" to vote for the most qualified.
bufu

Jefferson City, MO

#17 Feb 15, 2013
Bosnia was a peace keeping operation and I'm not aware of a single American life being lost. Iraq was an invasion and occupation that killed 4400 Americans and left the country worse than we found it.

Clinton was not in favor of the war in VN so his hypocrisy quotient was much less than Bush's.

Plus, Bush deserted his post in the face of the enemy.

Bush suffers terribly in comparison to Clinton.
What

Park Hills, MO

#18 Feb 15, 2013
A Conservative wrote:
Quote @ Robert A: " Bush thought nothing about getting us into war, of course he was a weekend warrior and may or may not have gone to meetings. He had the chance to volunteer for active duty but chose not to, partying sounded better to him at the time...."
Exactly the same thing could be said about Clinton with these exceptions:
Clinton thought nothing about placing American soldiers in harm's way in Bosnia.
Clinton never served in ANY branch of the military, so he could party every weekend instead of 'going to meetings' and serving his country one weekend a month and two weeks annually.
In a letter to the ROTC instructor at ASU explaining why he wouldn't participate in a program that he had signed up for that was keeping him out of Vietnam, Clinton wrote, "so many fine people have come to find themselves still loving their country but loathing the military"
I was referring to Bush because he sent our young men and women into his two wars we're in now. Comparing Bosnia with Iraq and Afghanistan is really a stretch.

Since: Jul 12

Jackson, MO

#19 Feb 15, 2013
Bufu, between Bosnia-Herzegovina and the bombing of Yugoslavia, there were a total of 32 American deaths in this 'peace keeping mission'.

In other actions:

Korea resulted in 36,516 Americans making the ultimate sacrifice during that 'police action'.

Vietnam resulted in 58,209 Americans losing their lives. It was both a 'conflict' and a 'police action'.

The first Gulf War cost 258 American lives.

In the War on Terror (2001-Now) 6,518 Americans have made the ultimate sacrifice to keep their homeland safe.

Congress has not declared war since 1941, but regardless of what it's called by politicians, when American soldiers lose their lives in combat it's war.
bufu

Jefferson City, MO

#20 Feb 15, 2013
quote

"...between Bosnia-Herzegovina and the bombing of Yugoslavia, there were a total of 32 American deaths in this 'peace keeping mission'."

OK, thanks.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Sikeston Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Bart Smith's Church 1 hr Guest 70
Keep a Word - Drop a Word (Dec '09) 1 hr Princess Hey 16,307
6 Word Sentence (Apr '15) 1 hr Princess Hey 2,103
True or False Game (Apr '14) 1 hr Princess Hey 3,537
What are you listening too? (Jan '13) 4 hr Princess Hey 93
Last Word ~~~First word (Nov '14) 4 hr Princess Hey 1,023
Keith Frankum (Oct '08) 5 hr Friend 25
Darin n Amanda Newton (Jun '12) Fri Guest 61

Sikeston Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Sikeston Mortgages