Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (683938)	5/27/2005 3:41:35 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

What 'revisionism'????? Facts are facts. Facts are facts, and you are attempting to spin your opinion into facts. Your opinion is opinion and not 'fact'. The fact is that 214 years of tradition has been destroyed by Democrats in the Senate. A definition that has stood for 214 years has been attacked for short term partisan gain. History will not be kind to Senate Democrats. revisionism: 2. advocacy of revision revision: 1 a : an act of revising b : a result of revising : ALTERATION 214 years without alteration was ok until the current un Constitutional Democrat Senators. you may call me a traditionalist. traditionalism: 1 : adherence to the doctrines or practices of a tradition 2 : the beliefs of those opposed to modernism, liberalism, or radicalism Two and a half years of whiney childishness is not the kind of tradition I would celebrate. 214 years of sometimes harmonious and sometimes contentious Senate tradition are worth keeping. There is no number for judicial nominations that is relevant other than majority vote. not 38%, 52%, 55%, 60%, 61 7/8%, 67%, 75%, 80% or 98.3%. The only relevant percentage is 51%.