DescentBB

I just had a great idea.
Burress is the appointee to the empty Obama senate seat. He's being denied the seat by his own party, the Democrats, probably because he's a weak candidate and would lose a later challenge or maybe because he's just weak period.
Who cares why. What matters is his defenders are playing the race card against the democrats who oppose him, breaking out words like lynching and such!! Lol, gotta love the irony.
Harry Reid says he won't be allowed to take the seat or be sworn in if he shows up at the Capitol.

So what should the republicans do?

Make a big stink about how the democrats are threatening to literally block the entrance to the Capitol a la governor racist peckerwood Wallace, thus blocking what would be currently the only black Senator...he was legally appointed by the Governor of his state... and President Bush should send in the National Guard to make sure he's allowed to enter the building!! Free the black man!!! De segregate the Congress!!!

LOL. Really.


Where the hell is Danny Glover when you need him.

He's being denied the seat by his own party, the Democrats, probably because he's a weak candidate and would lose a later challenge or maybe because he's just weak period.

Why does matter, and you are way off target. The most powerful poltical body in the world told Blago (before he appointed someone) that if he appointed someone, that someone would not get sat. Reguardless of who it was.

He appointed someone, they need to keep up their end.

I will conceed this was a greatly missed opertunity for the Dems to call them out on this racist B.S. of \"the only black senator.\" And it is their silence to responding to that point, and only that, which gives threads of this nature some traction.

dissent wrote:LOL. Really.


Where the hell is Danny Glover when you need him.

More telling, where are the Rev's Sharpton and Jackson?

Gooberman wrote:....

Why does matter, and you are way off target. The most powerful poltical body in the world told Blago (before he appointed someone) that if he appointed someone, that someone would not get sat. Reguardless of who it was.

He appointed someone, they need to keep up their end....

Who is this "most powerful political body" and what authority do they have to block the legal, legitimate, appointee from the state of Illinois from being seated?
Just because they are big doesn't make them right...it doesn't make their actions legal.
Maybe instead of keeping up their end of improper threats they should consider the constitutionality of their bravado and take it down a notch or three!

This is the same body that Pelosi said would reach across the aisle and seek out bi-partisan support right? Pelosi who just reached across the aisle only to offer the back of her hand to slap the other side...
The pendulum always swings back the other way so just how far do you want them to push it before they have to let it go?

Lets look at the Constitution,

Section 3, Clause 1 wrote:The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

It was not the intention of our founding fathers to give one man such power as to appoint a senator.

It was only if the State Legislature was not in session that the Governor could then appoint a replacement, and that appointment would only last until the State legislature reconvened. Welcome back to the constitution my friend.

It was one of the checks and balances that allowed for governing without direct and immediate public pressures. (See Dissent's Harry Read Video in the other thread)

Where has the 17th amendment gotten us? A credible run for the U.S. Senate costs you $15,000,000. By the time that is done their loyalty is not to the people, but to their owners.
Were there alot of back room deals before the 17th amendment? Sure, but come on, where the hell do you think they get the fifteen mil today?

Most Repubs agree with the Democrats that any Blago appointment would be tainted. The fact is, the constitution gets basterdized every day by congress, so why are you harping on the one time where it makes some moral sence, and actually agrees with stopping what the F.F. wanted to prevent?

For some reason I am being locked out of making edits,

\"No post mode specified\"

....is that your doing Spidey? And I dared to quote the constitution too!!!!

Tripple Post since I can't edit: From Wiki,

The following states have not ratified the 17th amendment:

Alabama
Kentucky
Mississippi
Virginia
South Carolina
Georgia
Maryland
Delaware
Rhode Island
Florida

The Senate is the sole judge of the qualifications of its members.

Gooberman wrote:Lets look at the Constitution,

Section 3, Clause 1 wrote:The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

It was not the intention of our founding fathers to give one man such power as to appoint a senator.

It was only if the State Legislature was not in session that the Governor could then appoint a replacement, and that appointment would only last until the State legislature reconvened. Welcome back to the constitution my friend.

It was one of the checks and balances that allowed for governing without direct and immediate public pressures. (See Dissent's Harry Read Video in the other thread)

Where has the 17th amendment gotten us? A credible run for the U.S. Senate costs you $15,000,000. By the time that is done their loyalty is not to the people, but to their owners.
Were there alot of back room deals before the 17th amendment? Sure, but come on, where the hell do you think they get the fifteen mil today?

Most Repubs agree with the Democrats that any Blago appointment would be tainted. The fact is, the constitution gets basterdized every day by congress, so why are you harping on the one time where it makes some moral sence, and actually agrees with stopping what the F.F. wanted to prevent?

The pertinent clause:

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of each State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

The legislature in Illinois has a law in place: The governor appoints the man to fill the job until they vote again.
Blago is the governor, he appointed a man that meets the qualifications therefore he is the legal junior 'Senator until the state of Illinois elects a replacement, either by special election or in the next regular election.

So all opinions on what past legislators would want is just talk not law.

Of course the repub's say any Blago appointee is tainted. Blago was trying to accept bribes for the appointment and the repubs want to show the dems as corrupt...big deal it doesn't change the law.

So Harry Reid has backed off of his original position because although the senate gets to set the qualifications for who is a member they don't get to dictate to the individual states who is selected or elected...more law trumping party rhetoric.

Burress is the senator, Reid and others are trying to bully him from being allowed into their club.
To stop him Illinois simply needs to lawfully elect a different man/woman...until then, thanks to the dem's we have political theater exposing the arrogance of the majority party.

No, it doesn't change the law. But \"the law\" came from man putting his grubby little hands on the constitution and tweaking it to allow this sort of thing to happen!

All they are trying to do is \"fix\" this.

We really arn't disagreeing on much; only that, imo, of all the windmills that deserve a good charging, I see this one as sort of a lawn flamingo.

They are doing a small-wrong to right a big one.

Yea Goob, when you were browsing my new pron site, I infected your machine with Backdoor_Spidey.web and now you can’t edit your posts…Bwahhhhaaaahhhaaaa.

Just wait and see what happens on Jan. 20th…


EDIT:….Hahahahahah….

But where else can I feed my fetish....

Gooberman wrote:But where else can I feed my fetish....

Spiders never creeped me out before now...

And why does the floor not look flat?

Will Robinson wrote:Spiders never creeped me out before now...

But she has such a nice hourglass figure

Gooberman wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Spiders never creeped me out before now...

But she has such a nice hourglass figure

How can you tell it's a she?

Oh crap! Now I'm going to have nightmares! Thanks loads!

woodchip wrote:And why does the floor not look flat?

You were looking at the floor and not the spider felatio??

SilverFJ wrote:

woodchip wrote:And why does the floor not look flat?

You were looking at the floor and not the spider felatio??

The pattern of hard wood makes the floor look the way it does, and the correct terminology would be cunnilingus.

My apologies, \"spider cunnilingus\".

My apologies, \"spider cunnilingus\".

And in a recent turn of events that will shock no one, it was once again discovered that Harry Reid does not have a pair!

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Illinois senior senator and Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin said in a Monday statement that the Senate would accept the credentials of Roland Burris.

About Face! Forward March!

Actually there is nothing Reid could do to stop Buress. Blago is not convicted of anything nor will he be charged. The whole mess, now that Obama's seat has been filled, will be quietly forgotten about or ... politics as usual.

Woodchip wrote:Actually there is nothing Reid could do to stop Buress

Then he shouldn’t be stomping around with that little twig he is carrying.

Goob, this is one of those world stopping moments where I say I totally agree with you.