PDA

View Full Version : Burris denied seat in US Senate to succeed Obama



biccat
01-06-2009, 11:59 AM
Burris denied seat in US Senate to succeed Obama (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090106/ap_on_go_co/senate_burris)

Roland Burris announced Tuesday he was rejected for Barack Obama's Senate seat, in a bizarre rainy-day scene on the Capitol grounds as lawmakers awaited the gaveling of the 111th Congress into session.

Standing amid a huge throng of reporters and television cameras in a cold and steady rain, Burris, 71, declared that he had been informed that "my credentials are not in order and will not be accepted."

https://www.msu.edu/~sharpfre/burris.jpg

xavierob82
01-06-2009, 12:54 PM
But...but...but...I thought Democrats only voted for Obama because he's black!!!!1!! Then why are they denying a black man his senate seat!?

More proof that Republicans live in a delusional fantasy world, with no basis in reality. I love it! :D

Mythic
01-06-2009, 12:56 PM
More proof that Republicans live in a delusional fantasy world, with no basis in reality. I love it! Um no black democrats only voted for Obama because he is black. Which is why 95% voted for Obama.

BSR
01-06-2009, 12:56 PM
But...but...but...I thought Democrats only voted for Obama because he's black!!!!1!! Then why are they denying a black man his senate seat!?

More proof that Republicans live in a delusional fantasy world, with no basis in reality. I love it! :D



What in the holy horseshit are you blathering about? They are denying him a senate seat because he was appointed by a corrupt Gov. and didn't have his credentials signed off by the Ill. Secretary of State because he was appointed buy a corrupt Governor.

biccat
01-06-2009, 01:50 PM
What in the holy horseshit are you blathering about? They are denying him a senate seat because he was appointed by a corrupt Gov. and didn't have his credentials signed off by the Ill. Secretary of State because he was appointed buy a corrupt Governor.
They're denying him the seat because he isn't the choice of the Messiah.

One important thing to consider here is Reid's contention that the Senate has the ability to choose who they can seat, outside of the limited Constitutional parameters. Unfortunately for the Dems, that's not the case. But if Reid can establish precedent with Burris, then the Democrat Senate can use this newly discovered "power" to seat Franken, avoiding Minnesota law altogether (by declaring Coleman unfit).

After that, it's only a short step to the Democrat majority using this power to deny seats to Republicans for any myriad of reasons. Unlikely, but this series of events is setting up Congress to allow Congressmen to decide their own successors, ignoring the will of the states.

PoliCon
01-06-2009, 02:07 PM
But...but...but...I thought Democrats only voted for Obama because he's black!!!!1!! Then why are they denying a black man his senate seat!?

More proof that Republicans live in a delusional fantasy world, with no basis in reality. I love it! :Dactually - it goes to show who the real racists are.

xavierob82
01-06-2009, 04:35 PM
actually - it goes to show who the real racists are.


You mean the party that was responsible for our nation's first black president? Or the party of David Duke? Which one are you talking about?

PoliCon
01-06-2009, 04:48 PM
You mean the party that was responsible for our nation's first black president? Or the party of David Duke? Which one are you talking about?The party of jim crow - separate but equal - a Klegal of the KKK as a party leader - and the one that calls black people racist names when they dare to think for themselves.

BTW - voting for someone just because he's black is not better than voting against someone just because he's black. Jackass. :rolleyes:

xavierob82
01-06-2009, 04:59 PM
So that's why all the conservative racist Southerners and the states of slavery, lynchings, and Jim Crowe laws are now 100% Republican. So you admit the GOP is the racist party. I get it now.

biccat
01-06-2009, 05:28 PM
You mean the party that was responsible for our nation's first black president? Or the party of David Duke? Which one are you talking about?
They're the same one, idiot.

Duke was a registered Democrat until 1989.

xavierob82
01-06-2009, 05:34 PM
They're the same one, idiot.

.


The ole Jim Crowe Southern Democrats (Dixiecrats) were anti-federal government, anti-liberal, right-wing conservatives. They weren't the same ones, moron.

biccat
01-06-2009, 06:14 PM
The ole Jim Crowe Southern Democrats (Dixiecrats) were anti-federal government, anti-liberal, right-wing conservatives. They weren't the same ones, moron.

Sorry, sometimes I forget that you're a liberal.

There are two major parties in this country, they are called the Democrat Party and Republican Party. When individuals seek public office, they often register with one or the other of these parties, for a variety of reasons. Voters tend to side with one party or the other, based on their ideological values, they are referred to as either Democrats or Republicans.

However, because our system is not set up to be about political parties, each of these parties has a private nomination process in order to designate one of their members to be on the Presidential ballot. In order to engage in this nomination process, you must designate one or the other, to prevent double voting, and other reasons.

David Duke was one of these individuals that decided to register, and run for office, as a Democrat until the late '80s.

Therefore, one could say that David Duke is a Democrat. In fact, quite obviously.

But just for fun, lets look at some of the other individuals who bridged that divide of the late '80s, apparently when there was a mass exodus of racists from the Democrat party to the Republican party, since it seems to be your assertion that early '80s Democrats were conservative racists.

In 1980 Ronald Reagan, a staunch conservative and Republican, was elected President of the United States. Similarly, in 1976 Jimmy Carter, village idiot, foe of killer rabbits, brother to swill hawker, Southern governor and Senator, and widely recognized as mentally disabled, er, liberal Democrat, was elected President.

So somehow, despite all southern Democrats of the '70s being anti-constitution racist conservatives, a liberal, racially progressive southern Democrat was elected to be the leader of the free world.

And those liberal, freedom loving friends of the minorities, who would apparently later form the backbone of the Democrat party, elected one of the most Conservative presidents in recent history.

It seems, and I'm just kind of throwing this out there, that you have no idea what you're talking about. I would even be willing to advance, although it's not to far of a leap, the idea that you're an idiot. While your level of mental degradation probably doesn't reach the level of the bumbling idiot who was recently elected to the White House, I would hazard to guess that you could at least give ex-President Carter a run for his money. Which is really saying something, since he's likely suffering from Alzheimer's.

PoliCon
01-06-2009, 06:15 PM
So that's why all the conservative racist Southerners and the states of slavery, lynchings, and Jim Crowe laws are now 100% Republican. So you admit the GOP is the racist party. I get it now.HEY DUMBASS - 100% republican? You ARE a worthless pile of monkey shit ain't ya. If you ever manage to pull your head out of your own ass and actually spend a second or two thinking - you come look me up. In the mean time - you might just want to accept that Your party is the one that is telling blacks across this country that on a level playing field with whites - blacks need special rules because they just can't compete.

Odysseus
01-07-2009, 10:47 AM
But...but...but...I thought Democrats only voted for Obama because he's black!!!!1!! Then why are they denying a black man his senate seat!?

More proof that Republicans live in a delusional fantasy world, with no basis in reality. I love it! :D
No, they voted for him because he's a liberal (at least, we think he is, since the media never bothered to report his actual positions. For all we know, he could be a free-market national defense hawk, but it's unlikely).

You mean the party that was responsible for our nation's first black president? Or the party of David Duke? Which one are you talking about?
The party that's responsible for our nation's first black president is the one that emancipated the slaves, fought for anti-lynching laws, overwhelmingly supported the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts and federalized the Arkansas National Guard and sent the 101st Airborne into Little Rock in order to enforce Brown vs. Board of Education. The party that fought tooth and nail against everything that I've described has wrapped themselves in the mantle of the people that they opposed for cynical tactical gains that have become strategic, but don't pretend for a minute that your party was anything other than the party of segregation, lynching, Jim Crow and every other despicable practice of the era.

The ole Jim Crowe Southern Democrats (Dixiecrats) were anti-federal government, anti-liberal, right-wing conservatives. They weren't the same ones, moron.
Ah, so Bobby Byrd has crossed the aisle? I must've missed that.

Sorry, sometimes I forget that you're a liberal.

There are two major parties in this country, they are called the Democrat Party and Republican Party. When individuals seek public office, they often register with one or the other of these parties, for a variety of reasons. Voters tend to side with one party or the other, based on their ideological values, they are referred to as either Democrats or Republicans.

However, because our system is not set up to be about political parties, each of these parties has a private nomination process in order to designate one of their members to be on the Presidential ballot. In order to engage in this nomination process, you must designate one or the other, to prevent double voting, and other reasons.

David Duke was one of these individuals that decided to register, and run for office, as a Democrat until the late '80s.

Therefore, one could say that David Duke is a Democrat. In fact, quite obviously.
And, one of the things that Democrats ignore about Duke and the Republican Party is that when Duke ran for governor of Louisiana, he ran in an open primary, not a Republican primary, and the incumbent, Republican Buddy Roehmer, came in third. That left Duke against the Democratic candidate, Edwin Edwards. The Republican Party endorsed Edwards, a Democrat, over Duke. The Duke campaign demonstrated that Republicans will put principles before power, at least once in a while. Can Xavier cite one example of a candidate that won a Democratic nomination that was too far gone for the Dems to support?

PoliCon
01-07-2009, 01:26 PM
Ah, so Bobby Byrd has crossed the aisle? I must've missed that. If this idiot would go back and check - he would find that only a HANDFUL of dixicrats crossed the isle - and they were all told - leave the racism behind - and they never got to run on racism as an issue ever again. Only the democratic party of the major parties - has ever made racism a party platform issue.

Zeus
01-07-2009, 01:31 PM
The Senate would have held an all day celebration upon swearing in Burris if it wasn't for the Blago Taint and both Blagos and Burris connection to the O man. The SOS refusal to certify Burris and that cover provided the Senate is all about Insulating the O man.

From what I've read about the Guy Burris was one of the few respected politicians in Illinois.

PoliCon
01-07-2009, 01:55 PM
according to Jim quinn of www.warroom.com Burris is a big fan of reparations.

Zeus
01-07-2009, 02:17 PM
according to Jim quinn of www.warroom.com (http://www.warroom.com) Burris is a big fan of reparations.

What liberal isn't. Black or white.

Mythic
01-07-2009, 03:26 PM
During the Civil War the Republican party wanted to free slaves and the Democratic party wanted to keep slaves.

But I don't think democrats are being racist, they just dont want someone appointed by blagojebitch to be put into office.

PoliCon
01-07-2009, 04:04 PM
What liberal isn't. Black or white.no no - BIG fan. Had plans drawn up to establish a PERMANENT FUND for reparations. . . . . We wouldn't just pay once - we'd pay over and over and over and over and over . . . .

Odysseus
01-07-2009, 04:33 PM
If this idiot would go back and check - he would find that only a HANDFUL of dixicrats crossed the isle - and they were all told - leave the racism behind - and they never got to run on racism as an issue ever again. Only the democratic party of the major parties - has ever made racism a party platform issue.
Yeah, but that isn't as good a talking point as simply calling everyone that he dislikes a racist.

The Senate would have held an all day celebration upon swearing in Burris if it wasn't for the Blago Taint and both Blagos and Burris connection to the O man. The SOS refusal to certify Burris and that cover provided the Senate is all about Insulating the O man.
The irony here is that the Senate isn't being racist. They have a valid point about Blago's conduct and corruption having tainted the appointment, but since he's not been indicted, and the legislature punted their opportunity to intervene with a special election (which might have put a Republican in the seat), they have no legal standing to refuse him. Worse, by claiming that the SOS lack of signature invalidates the appointment, they're making the claim that the SOS has a veto power over the governor. I'd hate to take that argument to court. Meanwhile, Burris, who had retired several years ago, after failing to advance any further up the political food chain, must have thought that he'd won the lottery when this opportunity came up after another African-American, a House member, refused the appointment for exactly the same reasons that the Senate is now citing. This is pretty embarassing for everyone involved, and if Blagojevich wanted to really rub everyone's noses in his situation, he's succeeded.


From what I've read about the Guy Burris was one of the few respected politicians in Illinois.
According to David Broder, who is not necessarily a reliable source, he was a hack who'd pretty much exhausted his shelf-life, sort of like Mark Green in NYC. You know the type, the not-very-charismatic guy who holds a mid-level statewide job, but hasn't got the juice or following to go any higher. He'd been the state AG, but lost races for governor, LT governor and senator at the primary level and had retired years ago.

AmPat
01-07-2009, 08:33 PM
You mean the party that was responsible for our nation's first black president? Or the party of David Duke? Which one are you talking about?
Um, I believe he was talking about the party of Robert "Sheets" Byrd.

Look up Abraham Lincoln next time you bring up which party historically supports Blacks. How about LBJ telling his cronies that he'd "have them ******s voting DIMocRAT for the next 200 years?" Lemme see, LBJ,,,HMMMM,,,,DIMocRAT. How's that sit with your limited perception of the DUmmycRAT party? Feeling better now? You brought up RACE, :eek: Deal with it!