OT You won't believe who said this...

Stop Making Sense

Earlier this week, a once-prominent American politician weighed in on
the questions of judicial appointees, the filibuster and religion in
politics, and he made a lot of sense. Here's what he said:

We began as a nation with a clear formulation of the basic
relationship between God, our rights as individuals, the government we
created to secure those rights, and the prerequisites for any power
exercised by our government.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident," our founders declared.
"That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain inalienable rights. . . ."

But while our rights come from God, as our founders added,
"governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just power from
the consent of the governed."

So, unlike our inalienable rights, our laws are human creations that
derive their moral authority from our consent to their
enactment--informed consent given freely within our deliberative
processes of self-government.

Any who seek to wield the powers of government without the consent of
the people, act unjustly.

Excellent points, sir! America was founded with "a clear formulation
of the basic relationship" between God and government--a rebuke to
those who today would disfranchise religious believers. Laws "derive
their moral authority from our consent." Take that, activist judges!
And "any who seek to wield the powers of government without the
consent of the people, act unjustly." Reactionary Democrats are wrong
to subvert majority rule via the filibuster.

What's odd about this is that the speaker was Al Gore, and he doesn't
actually believe any of this. Even so, it's nice of him to say it.

------------------

Al Gore!!!!

The first thing that has made any sense coming out of this guy's
mouth! Of course he doesn't believe a word of it...



--
Scott in Florida

In article <d8r671h7rjp4l1to1bt42jcmv4qees0dhl@4ax.com>,
Scott in Florida <NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Stop Making Sense
>
> Earlier this week, a once-prominent American politician weighed in on
> the questions of judicial appointees, the filibuster and religion in
> politics, and he made a lot of sense. Here's what he said:
>
> We began as a nation with a clear formulation of the basic
> relationship between God, our rights as individuals, the government we
> created to secure those rights, and the prerequisites for any power
> exercised by our government.
>
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident," our founders declared.
> "That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
> Creator with certain inalienable rights. . . ."
>
> But while our rights come from God, as our founders added,
> "governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just power from
> the consent of the governed."
>
> So, unlike our inalienable rights, our laws are human creations that
> derive their moral authority from our consent to their
> enactment--informed consent given freely within our deliberative
> processes of self-government.
>
> Any who seek to wield the powers of government without the consent of
> the people, act unjustly.
>
> Excellent points, sir! America was founded with "a clear formulation
> of the basic relationship" between God and government--a rebuke to
> those who today would disfranchise religious believers. Laws "derive
> their moral authority from our consent." Take that, activist judges!
> And "any who seek to wield the powers of government without the
> consent of the people, act unjustly." Reactionary Democrats are wrong
> to subvert majority rule via the filibuster.
>
> What's odd about this is that the speaker was Al Gore, and he doesn't
> actually believe any of this. Even so, it's nice of him to say it.
>
> ------------------
>
> Al Gore!!!!
>
> The first thing that has made any sense coming out of this guy's
> mouth! Of course he doesn't believe a word of it...
>
>
>
> --
> Scott in Florida[/color]

I think Al Gore will run in 08 perhaps beating out hillary.
--

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 12:58:01 GMT, "Dbu,'" <ntspam@spco.m> wrote:
[color=blue]
> I think Al Gore will run in 08 perhaps beating out hillary.[/color]

One can only hope....
--
Scott in Florida

Scott in Florida wrote the following on 4/30/2005 7:35 AM:[color=blue]
>
> Excellent points, sir! America was founded with "a clear formulation
> of the basic relationship" between God and government--a rebuke to
> those who today would disfranchise religious believers. Laws "derive
> their moral authority from our consent." Take that, activist judges!
> And "any who seek to wield the powers of government without the
> consent of the people, act unjustly." Reactionary Democrats are wrong
> to subvert majority rule via the filibuster.
>
> What's odd about this is that the speaker was Al Gore, and he doesn't
> actually believe any of this. Even so, it's nice of him to say it.
>
> ------------------
>
> Al Gore!!!!
>
> The first thing that has made any sense coming out of this guy's
> mouth! Of course he doesn't believe a word of it...
>
>
>
> --
> Scott in Florida[/color]

The record for the longest individual speech belongs to South Carolina's
Strom Thurmond,
who unsuccessfully filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the
Civil Rights Act of 1957.
A true bigot, Thurmond became a Republican in response to President
Johnson's signing of
civil rights legislation in 1964.

------------------------------

Christopher Weems
Atlanta Inquirer
07-01-1995

Republican Filibuster Kills Surgeon General Nomination.

The long and often controversial fight over the nomination of Nashville
gynecologist Dr. Henry Foster effectively ended last Thursday as a
Senate filibuster, led by Texas Republican Phil Gramm defeated the
enomination.

"I am disappointed with [the outcome] but this was not for naught,"
Foster said.

Foster, whose opponents repeatedly attacked him because he had
previously performed abortions, is rumored at Inquirer press time to be
in line for a new White House post to address the problem of teenage
pregnancy.

At press time, President Bill Clinton has not named a new nominee. He
could have continued his support of Foster, but Republican opposition
showed no signs of fold...

-------------------------------------------------
Senate Republican filibuster halts airline workers' aid

WASHINGTON, D.C. - In a blow to workers, the U.S. Senate sustained a GOP
filibuster against legislation to immediately aid some 150,000 laid-off
aviation industry workers, including thousands of Pacific Northwest
Boeing workers, who will lose their jobs as a result of the Sept. 11
terrorist attacks on the United States.

Senate Bill 1454, authored by Senator Jean Carnahan, D-Mo., had enough
votes to pass Oct. 11, but 44 Republicans wouldn't allow it to go to a vote.

Republican leader Trent Lott of Mississippi led a filibuster, which
AFL-CIO President John Sweeney said was backed by President George W.
Bush....

-----------------------------------------------
Republican Filibuster Looms on Clinton Stimulus Plan
By Eric Pianin
and Helen Dewar

The Washington Post

All 43 Senate Republicans Thursday threatened to block President
Clinton's $16.3 billion economic stimulus package unless he reduces it
to their satisfaction.

Without the support of at least some Republicans, Democrats, who are
also threatened with defections within their ranks, cannot muster the 60
votes necessary to end any GOP filibuster and force a vote. ...

-------------------------------------------------------

Use of the filibuster against judicial nominations has a long history.
According to the Congressional Research Service, senators attempted to
filibuster 14 Court of Appeals nominations between 1980 and 2000. As
recently as 2000, Republican Senators attempted to filibuster the
nominations of both Richard Paez and Marsha Berzon to the Ninth Circuit.
In fact, Senator Frist was among those voting to continue the filibuster
of the Paez nomination. And, of course, Republicans successfully
filibustered the nomination of Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court in 1968.

---------------------------------------------

Staunch nuclear option proponents like Senators Hatch and Frist have
their own histories to explain.

* In 1994, Hatch defended a Republican-led filibuster on a judicial
nomination by declaring that the filibuster is “one of the few tools the
minority has to protect itself and those the minority represents.”
* More recently Senator Frist voted to support a Republican
filibuster of a Clinton appellate nominee, Richard Paez, and even voted
for a motion to postpone consideration of the nomination after cloture
had been invoked – an exceedingly rare tactic used to avoid a final vote.
* Senator Howard Baker Jr. (R-TN), stated during the successful
filibuster waged against Abe Fortas (which he supported): "On any issue
the majority at any given moment is not always right."

---------------------------------------------

Between 1968 and 2000, of 34 nominees for Executive and Judicial
appointments, Senate Republicans led filibusters on 26 of them.
[url]http://media.pfaw.org/filibusters.pdf[/url]

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 14:23:16 GMT, Z <zig@zag.nut> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Scott in Florida wrote the following on 4/30/2005 7:35 AM:[color=green]
>>
>> Excellent points, sir! America was founded with "a clear formulation
>> of the basic relationship" between God and government--a rebuke to
>> those who today would disfranchise religious believers. Laws "derive
>> their moral authority from our consent." Take that, activist judges!
>> And "any who seek to wield the powers of government without the
>> consent of the people, act unjustly." Reactionary Democrats are wrong
>> to subvert majority rule via the filibuster.
>>
>> What's odd about this is that the speaker was Al Gore, and he doesn't
>> actually believe any of this. Even so, it's nice of him to say it.
>>
>> ------------------
>>
>> Al Gore!!!!
>>
>> The first thing that has made any sense coming out of this guy's
>> mouth! Of course he doesn't believe a word of it...
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Scott in Florida[/color]
>
>The record for the longest individual speech belongs to South Carolina's
>Strom Thurmond,
>who unsuccessfully filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the
>Civil Rights Act of 1957.
>A true bigot, Thurmond became a Republican in response to President
>Johnson's signing of
>civil rights legislation in 1964.[/color]

There you go using facts against neocons again. Tsk Tsk.


--
gburnore@databasix dot com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
DataBasix | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ 3 4 1 4 2 ݳ޳ 6 9 0 6 9 ÝÛ³
Black Helicopter Repair Svcs Division | Official Proof of Purchase
===========================================================================
Want one? GET one! [url]http://signup.databasix.com[/url]
===========================================================================

Gary L. Burnore wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 14:23:16 GMT, Z <zig@zag.nut> wrote:
>
>[color=green]
>>Scott in Florida wrote the following on 4/30/2005 7:35 AM:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Excellent points, sir! America was founded with "a clear formulation
>>>of the basic relationship" between God and government--a rebuke to
>>>those who today would disfranchise religious believers. Laws "derive
>>>their moral authority from our consent." Take that, activist judges!
>>>And "any who seek to wield the powers of government without the
>>>consent of the people, act unjustly." Reactionary Democrats are wrong
>>>to subvert majority rule via the filibuster.
>>>
>>>What's odd about this is that the speaker was Al Gore, and he doesn't
>>>actually believe any of this. Even so, it's nice of him to say it.
>>>
>>>------------------
>>>
>>>Al Gore!!!!
>>>
>>>The first thing that has made any sense coming out of this guy's
>>>mouth! Of course he doesn't believe a word of it...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Scott in Florida[/color]
>>
>>The record for the longest individual speech belongs to South Carolina's
>>Strom Thurmond,
>>who unsuccessfully filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the
>>Civil Rights Act of 1957.
>>A true bigot, Thurmond became a Republican in response to President
>>Johnson's signing of
>>civil rights legislation in 1964.[/color][/color]

Which made him the very first true Neo-con.

True conservatives are apalled by Neo-cons, actually.

"Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:edQce.2296$HL2.338@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...[color=blue]
>
>
> Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>[color=green]
> > On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 14:23:16 GMT, Z <zig@zag.nut> wrote:
> >
> >[color=darkred]
> >>Scott in Florida wrote the following on 4/30/2005 7:35 AM:
> >>
> >>>Excellent points, sir! America was founded with "a clear formulation
> >>>of the basic relationship" between God and government--a rebuke to
> >>>those who today would disfranchise religious believers. Laws "derive
> >>>their moral authority from our consent." Take that, activist judges!
> >>>And "any who seek to wield the powers of government without the
> >>>consent of the people, act unjustly." Reactionary Democrats are wrong
> >>>to subvert majority rule via the filibuster.
> >>>
> >>>What's odd about this is that the speaker was Al Gore, and he doesn't
> >>>actually believe any of this. Even so, it's nice of him to say it.
> >>>
> >>>------------------
> >>>
> >>>Al Gore!!!!
> >>>
> >>>The first thing that has made any sense coming out of this guy's
> >>>mouth! Of course he doesn't believe a word of it...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Scott in Florida
> >>
> >>The record for the longest individual speech belongs to South Carolina's
> >>Strom Thurmond,
> >>who unsuccessfully filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the
> >>Civil Rights Act of 1957.
> >>A true bigot, Thurmond became a Republican in response to President
> >>Johnson's signing of
> >>civil rights legislation in 1964.[/color][/color]
>
> Which made him the very first true Neo-con.
>
> True conservatives are apalled by Neo-cons, actually.[/color]

So true, too bad the Neocons don't know this. They think they are doing the
right a favor with thier brainless OT posts in this NG.