XX CONFIRMED * XX

-- Ain't Gonna Happen (Not Here Not@ever.com), February 01, 2001

Answers

Thanks, Now I know who to call and write to to tell them I am against the Ashcroft confirmation.

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), January 16, 2001.

Hey Cherri...I don't think your phone call(s) or letters worked! ;-)

-- Ain't Gonna Happen (Not Here Not@ever.com), February 01, 2001.

Won't somebody please sell me a lifetime supply of toilet paper and tampons? I've got to PREPARE for the coming CATASTROPHE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), January 16, 2001.

Hey Tarzan! Any luck finding the TP or your Tampons? ;-)

-- Ain't Gonna Happen (Not Here Not@ever.com), February 01, 2001.

Just how did those Republicans in the Senate pull off that one????

I'm sure Z will explain it all to us.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), February 01, 2001.

Once again, justice and decency have prevailed. Is this a great country or what? This AG will make sure that the laws of the land are ‘followed’ not selectively ‘interpreted’.

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), February 01, 2001.

How come all the southern-racist hick boys all have that same dopy, stupid, half-lidded look?

-- Jesus (martinez@mexico.gov), February 01, 2001.

Short answer - inbreeding. Newt Gingrich had this look too, so did Sherriff Rosco P Coltrane.

-- bo_duke (dixiefuck@hazard.county), February 01, 2001.

At least a message was sent to the president that he has a solid opposition, and that anything needed two-thirds majority of the senate to pass is going to be particularly difficult. Oh, and he can be impeached, Ashcroft that is, if he does not do exactly what he said he would do.

-- GoAheadShoot (not@cartoon.character), February 01, 2001.

GoAheadShoot,

What is it, exactly, that needs a 2/3 majority of the Senate?

Besides convicting someone during an impeachment trial, of course.

LOL.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), February 01, 2001.

“Oh, and he can be impeached, Ashcroft that is, if he does not do exactly what he said he would do.”

Like ummm, Janet Reno for example.

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), February 01, 2001.

If Bush was really an uniter rather than a divider he would have nominated a true moderate for AG, such as Al Sharpton or Ted Kenedy.

-- Dumbya is dumb (dum@dum.dum), February 01, 2001.

Are you saying that Bush is just run of the mill dumb, or spell Kennedy with only one "n" dumb?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), February 01, 2001.

TOO FUNNY 'J'. The humur wil bea loste on taht phool.

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), February 01, 2001.

An impeachable offense would be toasting 23 children to get their parents to come out.....

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), February 01, 2001.

J:

I'm sure Z will explain it all to us.

Not me, I am already involved in too many impossible tasks. *<))))

What the vote means to me is we may see what happened during the Andrew Johnson Presidency. No replacement of retiring Supreme Court Members [if non-moderates are nominated]. We may also see no new appointments to the Federal Bench [same reason]. Come on J, you know how the Senate works. My guess is 55 yea votes at a maximum to cut off debate. Not enough.

No I haven't changed my opinion.

Cheers,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), February 01, 2001.

Z,

But on the other Ashcroft thread you said, and I quote,

"Just follow the numbers. If more than 40 vote against Ashcroft [hell, even 35 will do], you won't see anyone to the right of Stevens appointed to the Supreme Court or in any part of the Federal Court System".

More than 40 is 41 (or more), but 35 is only 35.

100-41=59.

100-35=65.

59 Senators is not enough to stop a filibuster, but 65 Senators is. Therefore, that must not have been your original line of thought (unless your math is that poor ).

However, neither 59 Senators, nor 65 Senators, would be enough to get a 2/3 majority of the votes. This appears to be your original, albeit incorrect, line of reasoning.

Normally I would let such things slide, but in light of your insult and overall condescending tone towards me on the other Ashcroft thread, I felt compelled to push this issue.

So please, do enlighten us all as to which mistake it was that you made on the previous Ashcroft thread. Was it very poor mathematical skills, or a false belief that it took a 2/3 majority vote of the Senate to confirm appointees?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), February 01, 2001.

J:

What I meant was that I thought that some democrats would vote to approve Ashcroft even though they wouldn't vote for future candidates with the same philosophy. I didn't expect more than 35 to vote against him. I was wrong. 42 did.

Out of the 8 who voted to confirm, my guess is that 4 will switch in the future. There are at least 2 Republicans who will join them.

I stand by my original statement. We will have to wait and see.

Cheers,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), February 01, 2001.

It's kind of sad to watch Teddy with nothing else to do.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), February 01, 2001.

I can see it already... Ain't, Carlos, Barry (AKA "Ra"), and J getting together to celebrate with a circle jerk on Ashcroft's picture.

-- LOL (gay@boy.queers), February 01, 2001.

There is a hypocritical liberal showing his true colors. Day in and day out he puts up the facade that he is really for gay rights, and that there is nothing abnormal about homosexuality, and then oops, the true person hiding underneath all of that political correctness comes to the surface and rears its hideously ugly head with the handle of:

LOL(gay@boy.queers).

Yes, you all read that correctly. As one of the left's finest tries to think of something derogatory to call some of the conservative posters on the forum, the terms that jump from his mind to the keyboard are:

LOL(gay@boy.queers).

Wow. I wonder what my ideological counterparts would be posting right now if I had used the term, "queers"?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), February 01, 2001.

Aw, don’t be too hard on the Hawkster, ‘J’. We are used to him by now and his frequent bouts of penis envy are always good for a chuckle or two.

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), February 01, 2001.

Sorry J, your ignorant stereotypes don't apply to me, I'm not supportive of gays. Poopholes were made for one thing, but apparently you and your butt-buddies haven't figured that out yet.

-- (hee.hee.hee@gay.boy.ashcroft.lovers), February 01, 2001.

My ignorant stereotypes?

If you weren't so juvenile, you would be comical.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), February 01, 2001.

You assume all liberals are gay supporters. HAH! Typical dumbass narrow-minded right-wing ignorance. Yeah, all black people love watermelon too, right?

-- hee hee hee (what@dumb.ass!), February 01, 2001.

This is too funny. J, it *is* comical. Hawk's such an idiot!

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), February 02, 2001.

Blow me Dennis..er, I mean J.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), February 02, 2001.

J-

It is PC to use the Q word if you are homosexual just as it is PC to use the N word if you are a black street gangstah just as it is PC to use the C word if you are a militant feminist.

Obviously LOL(gay@boy.queers) is a homosexual.

-- (Paracelsus@Pb.Au), February 03, 2001.

Paracelsus,

And by the sound of his posts, one who hates himself for what he is, too.

That would explain a lot.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), February 03, 2001.

Jack Booted Thug,

Good to see you back on the forum, old boy!

Trying to get my goat with the "Dennis" thing, eh? Nice try, but no sale.

I'm not into that gay stuff, but I tell you what. You go ahead and show up unannounced and break into my home, and I will blow you away .

How's that sound? : )

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), February 03, 2001.

Sounds good, Dennis! How's Hudson these days, anyway?

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), February 03, 2001.

Bemused,

Evidently you can't read. I am neither Dennis Olson, nor am I into that gay stuff.

Besides, everyone knows that Rock Hudson has been dead for years. : )

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), February 03, 2001.

Gee J, glad to see you remember me.

You never did get back to me on that AK-47 duel we were going to have. Will you still lend me one of yours, Denny?

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), February 03, 2001.

Jack Booted Thug,

Of course I remember you, you big storm- trooping galoot!

As I said earlier, I'm not biting on the "Dennis" shtick. As far as the AK-47 duel that you at one time had proposed, I am afraid it's a no-go. There are a number of reasons that I must decline. Current laws pertaining to dueling and the fact that I currently don't own even one AK-47, let alone two, (so that I would be able to lend you one) are the most compelling.

That, and I just can't imagine that it would be a fair fight if I had to lend my adversary an AK-47 just moments before turning him into swiss cheese with one. I simply could not live with my conscience.

I meant to ask you this before, but asking to borrow an assault weapon?. Tsk, Tsk. Just what kind of a tool of government oppression do you call yourself, anyway? : )

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), February 03, 2001.