If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Sparks Tribune)   Richard Burr (R-eally doesn't care about national security, NC) derails a Senate Armed Services hearing to protest the health care bill. It's cool, the commander of the US Strategic Command needed to use his airline miles anyway   (charlotteobserver.com) divider line 173
    More: Dumbass, Richard Burr, Armed Services Committee, U.S. Sen, Claire McCaskill, armed forces, unanimous consent, state attorney general, Senate Armed Services  
•       •       •

2542 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Mar 2010 at 1:16 AM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



173 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-03-25 08:20:19 AM  
oldebayer: Vindibudd: Yes, go figure that. The Democrats hold that territory? When did that happen? When they filibustered judicial nominations for the FIRST TIME IN HISTORY? Is that the high ground? And when Republicans thought about but ultimately did not go reconciliation? That kind of territory?

[Citation needed.] Are you talking about the filibuster of Lyndon Johnson's appointment of Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice in 1968? If you have some earlier example, please trot it out.


Isn't it OBVIOUS that moving someone from associate justice to chief justice isn't a judicial matter? Even if you can find a case of a filibuster of a judicial nominee before Bush, that doesn't disprove his claim that there has never been a filibuster of a judicial nominee anymore than pointing out that some of Bush's nominees weren't filibustered doesn't detract from his point that all of Bush's nominees were filibustered.
 
2010-03-25 09:02:27 AM  
Grungehamster: Isn't it OBVIOUS that moving someone from associate justice to chief justice isn't a judicial matter?

Isn't it OBVIOUS that it is?

Grungehamster: Even if you can find a case of a filibuster of a judicial nominee before Bush, that doesn't disprove his claim that there has never been a filibuster of a judicial nominee anymore than pointing out that some of Bush's nominees weren't filibustered doesn't detract from his point that all of Bush's nominees were filibustered.

That may not detract from it, but the facts do:

http://mediamatters.org/research/200505180004
The Top 10 filibuster falsehoods
Falsehood #10: Democrats have opposed "all" or "most" of Bush's judicial nominees

"Nuclear option" proponents have drastically exaggerated Democratic efforts to block Bush's judicial nominees, suggesting that they have opposed all of his nominees or all of his conservative nominees.

In fact, the Senate has to date approved 208 judicial nominees, with Senate Democrats filibustering 10. The vast majority of Bush's nominees have received strong bipartisan support. For example, in April district court nominee Paul Crotty was confirmed by a vote of 95-0. Even among Bush's first-term appellate nominees, the Senate confirmed more than 70 percent.
 
2010-03-25 09:03:35 AM  
Oh MAN - the GOP gots a plan for 2012...

thepatriotaxe.com
 
2010-03-25 09:09:50 AM  
HansensDisease: Don't blame me. I didn't vote for the idiot.

Me neither; I'd take a 3 legged dog for Senator over Burr.
 
2010-03-25 09:20:30 AM  
Vindibudd: Weaver95: Vindibudd:
Yes, go figure that. The Democrats hold that territory? When did that happen? When they filibustered judicial nominations for the FIRST TIME IN HISTORY? Is that the high ground? And when Republicans thought about but ultimately did not go reconciliation? That kind of territory?

so, ok. lets assume for a moment that you really are upset that 'both sides' are 'bad'. you've given us a lot of material covering the sins of the democratic party. What do you think the Republicans have done wrong?


How about you come up with a list since I am busy arguing with every other liberal on this board. I'll tell you if I agree.



But YOU made the claim that "both sides" were bad. You must have had something in mind if you were going to try and use that statement to convince anyone. Otherwise you were just talking out of your ass with nothing to back yourself up. In THAT case, the polite thing to do (having been caught) is to apologize and defer contributions until you've extended the barest of courtesies by actually spending some TIME on your "thought" before offering it.

It's the way responsible adults behave.
 
2010-03-25 09:24:27 AM  
Aarontology: Man, I wish I had a dollar for every time someone thought Weaver and Hubie were liberals because they criticized the GOP's antics

When the tent gets so small that even they don't fit, the party's in trouble.
 
2010-03-25 09:26:13 AM  
My baby boomer parents are loving people, and have their Masters degrees.

I also thought they were a bit better with money then they turned out to be. Back in my first year of college, I was the usual moron with his first credit card, and racked up a few $K in debt. I ended up paying it off with my summer job, but it left me with little spending money for the next semester.

My father gave me a long lecture on the responsible use of debt.

Because of that discussion, I was under the impression that my parents were behaving in a responsible manner. They had bought there current house in 1984, so I had been under the impression that they were close to paying it off.

Whoops. I learned last year that they had taken so many home equity loans to pay for various vacations and other things, that they were nearly underwater... AFTER 26 YEARS. My father was a commission only broker at the time, and was making crap money. My mother was a retired teacher and only had her pension.

They were not sure if they could make their mortgage payments.

Fortunately, due to that old lecture I had received, I had minimal debt, and lots of savings to help them with their problem. A couple days after I wrote them a check, I was on the phone with my mother. She invited me over for dinner, mentioning that she was making some roast beef because she "had decided to splurge".
.
.
.
I think that was the first time I really yelled at my mother.



Farkin' baby boomers.

/coolstorybro
 
2010-03-25 09:27:21 AM  
Too bad the Dems couldn't get their act together and vote as a solid block before they lost the seats. They've earned these obstructive tactics. Oh, and thanks for wasting the time of those generals and senators, and of course the money of the taxpayers by making them reschedule the meeting, etc.

/sigh, business as usual in the Federal Government
 
2010-03-25 09:28:47 AM  
Vindibudd

Democrats after years of biatching about reconciliation and partisanship gave Republicans the finger and used both to ram this healthcare bill down our (the peoples') throats. So turnabout is fair play.

The above is certainly not delusional & selective partisan-blinded memory. The Republicans showed a clear desire to participate in the HCR process after all...

...right?
 
2010-03-25 09:35:26 AM  
Last time Burr was up for election he received more donations from pharmaceutical companies than any other candidate.

Therefore this is an absolutely stunning turn of events.
 
2010-03-25 09:36:32 AM  
Bigedmond: Its a drop holster. It is mostly used to when you are moving around with a rifle, IE an m4, you have more mobility. The military uses then because a belt holster can easy catch on the soldiers body armor, making the soldier less maneuverable.

For his purposes, yea it was strictly for show.


Depending on what state he's in, and what the laws are, a drop holster can allow an untucked shirt or sweatshirt without any police goons arresting him for "concealing" it.

Open carry is supposed to be OPEN. Concealed carry is supposed to be CONCEALED. In-between states are often borderline illegal or outright illegal.

Also, a belt holster with a full sized pistol is uncomfortable, makes it hard to get in/out of a vehicle, carry stuff, etc.

He may be just obeying the law or out for comfort/convenience and not after any particular tacticool look. His eyes are freakishly close together though.
 
2010-03-25 09:39:52 AM  
Wasn't there another traitor named Burr?
 
2010-03-25 09:42:20 AM  
Baby Diego: Vindibudd

Democrats after years of biatching about reconciliation and partisanship gave Republicans the finger and used both to ram this healthcare bill down our (the peoples') throats. So turnabout is fair play.

The above is certainly not delusional & selective partisan-blinded memory. The Republicans showed a clear desire to participate in the HCR process after all...

...right?


They did have a clear desire to be involved with the process; that's why Mike Enzi joined the Senate "Gang of Six" so he could have a deciding influence on this legislation.

...now granted, he publicly stated that the only reason he wanted to be in on it was to delay it, weaken it, and potentially derail it, but that's still wanting to be involved in the PROCESS of making it, right?
 
2010-03-25 10:11:50 AM  
yakmans_dad: Wasn't there another traitor named Burr?

Yes. Richard Burr.
 
2010-03-25 10:13:23 AM  
thurstonxhowell: yakmans_dad: Wasn't there another traitor named Burr?

Yes. Richard Burr.


This made more sense when I read it as a traitor, not another traitor.
 
2010-03-25 10:19:55 AM  
Vindibudd: I shall clarify, Democrats filibustered EVERY SINGLE JUDICIAL NOMINEE OF W. THAT was what had never been done before in history, the practice of filibustering every single judge. Sorry for the confusion.

Now that you've been challenged, you're opting to just straight up lie?
 
2010-03-25 11:19:38 AM  
This is just full blown stupid. Somebody needs to break his knees with a fungo bat.
 
2010-03-25 01:55:55 PM  
mister13: Is it just me or does it seem like the US is headed for civil war?

People are going to be killed sooner or later over this shiat, but I doubt it will become a civil war. It's too non-regional. And that lame-arse guy I saw yesterday boasting about three million guns pointing at liberals had better do a quick check of stuff like body armor, communications, infra-red, armored vehicles, air support and a thousand other things before he takes up his musket and heads for the hills.
 
2010-03-25 02:17:21 PM  
Ex Parte Gilligan: Grungehamster: Even if you can find a case of a filibuster of a judicial nominee before Bush, that doesn't disprove his claim that there has never been a filibuster of a judicial nominee anymore than pointing out that some of Bush's nominees weren't filibustered doesn't detract from his point that all of Bush's nominees were filibustered.

That may not detract from it, but the facts do:

http://mediamatters.org/research/200505180004



I think Grungehamster's comment was dripping with sardony. I posted that same linkie, btw, in one of my responses to Vindibudd, who ignored it, lied to my face and then ran off.

Facts? They don't need no stinking facts!

An aside to the Baby-Boomer-Haters: I am a boomer, born in 1948, and my main contribution to the mess we are in now was to tutor a fairly substantial number of high school students -- nearly all of post-boomer generations, though I didn't bother labeling them -- to pass SATs or various classes in science and math. I also tutored a lot of college students. Did not vote for Reagan, Nixon or any flavor of Bush. Not responsible for Social Security, or Viet Nam, or television reality shows. Never wasted my vote on a loopy third party candidate, and have voted in all but one election for which I was an eligible voter (this was a school board run-off that happened just post-Katrina, when I was out of Florida looking for a house to buy in New Mexico.)

Hate us collectively, if you wish, hate me individually if you must, but hear me now and think about it later: one day you will be my age, and you just might hear some nasty things being said about you by people young enough to be hosed off your lawn. What goes around, comes around. Good luck with that.
 
2010-03-25 02:29:23 PM  
I know this might sound far fetched, but I'll go at it anyway.



We are in two wars right now. When a person derails the advancement of our military in the time of war purposfully, they need to be brought up on treason charges, and even possibly be charged with "aiding terrorists".
 
2010-03-25 08:12:59 PM  
oldebayer: Ex Parte Gilligan: Grungehamster: Even if you can find a case of a filibuster of a judicial nominee before Bush, that doesn't disprove his claim that there has never been a filibuster of a judicial nominee anymore than pointing out that some of Bush's nominees weren't filibustered doesn't detract from his point that all of Bush's nominees were filibustered.

That may not detract from it, but the facts do:

http://mediamatters.org/research/200505180004


I think Grungehamster's comment was dripping with sardony. I posted that same linkie, btw, in one of my responses to Vindibudd, who ignored it, lied to my face and then ran off.

Facts? They don't need no stinking facts!

An aside to the Baby-Boomer-Haters: I am a boomer, born in 1948, and my main contribution to the mess we are in now was to tutor a fairly substantial number of high school students -- nearly all of post-boomer generations, though I didn't bother labeling them -- to pass SATs or various classes in science and math. I also tutored a lot of college students. Did not vote for Reagan, Nixon or any flavor of Bush. Not responsible for Social Security, or Viet Nam, or television reality shows. Never wasted my vote on a loopy third party candidate, and have voted in all but one election for which I was an eligible voter (this was a school board run-off that happened just post-Katrina, when I was out of Florida looking for a house to buy in New Mexico.)

Hate us collectively, if you wish, hate me individually if you must, but hear me now and think about it later: one day you will be my age, and you just might hear some nasty things being said about you by people young enough to be hosed off your lawn. What goes around, comes around. Good luck with that.


I'm a 48 stater and the tail end of the boomers, born in 1956 and I agree wholeheartedly.

I think Fark should require that each post contain the year the person was born so we can figure out whether they're just young or stupid.
 
2010-03-25 08:33:31 PM  
Dick Burr.....Giggity.
 
2010-03-26 05:08:53 AM  
UNC_Samurai: Fellow North Carolinians; we could have had Erskine Bowles instead of this louse in 2004, but noooooo. We had to have two of the laziest senators in a century with him and that harpy Dole.

I didn't vote for this twat but I know people who did. And Dole...*sigh*. Then again people out here think Helms and Taylor were gifts from above.
 
Displayed 23 of 173 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report