Roberts confirmed (1 Viewer)

[Navy Pride]

This just in, We have a New Chief Justice!!!!!!!

This just in and its great news for Conservatives......The Senate just voted on the confirmation of John Roberts and by a 78 to 22 vote Judge Roberts was confirmed as Chief Justice........

This is a great victory for the president and for his legacy...

It shoud have been 100-0 but the usuual suspects Kennedy, Kerry, and Clinton voted no......They have to please the far left of the democratic party.......

 

[Deegan]

Well......there it is folks, one step closer to a court that will respect the founding fathers wishes for this great nation. I could not be more pleased with the selection, and I don't know how these 22 Democrats could not see the same.

78 to 22 final vote tally.

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/supreme_court

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Damn you beat me to it.

 

[Navy Pride]

This is a great victory for the president and for his legacy...

It shoud have been 100-0 but the usuual suspects Kennedy, Kerry, and Clinton voted no......They have to please the far left of the democratic party.......

 

[gordontravels]

MSNBC is already complaining (liberal Chris Mathews) that the vote was "only" 78 to 22. Isn't 78% considered a landslide? Here is this "slant the news" talking head from MSNBC wanting to go back to the days of the high 80's while he simply adds to the slant that the media will give any news that is actually quite normal. I would expect Democrats to oppose a Bush Nominee no matter what the office.

Now the media is ramping up the rhetoric because President Bush will announce another Supreme Court nominee within the week. Mr. Mathews complained that the president should announce the nominee on Friday but probably wouldn't because "it would be fodder for the weekend news programs". Fodder Mr. Mathews? You don't like who you don't know he is going to nominate? And you are reporting?

Sorry folks but the media doesn't fool me. They only feed partisan hunger even when they don't know. They just reported yesterday that Congressman David Drier would take over the leadership position of the House temporarily from Tom Delay. Guess what? He didn't.

Today MSNBC calls it "palace intrigue" just as they tell you our President is "desperate" when it comes to doing his job. Who told them that or is it just some reporters perception which becomes opinion which means it isn't reporting?

I don't even wait to see if the media is right anymore. It's so usual that they aren't that I prefer to wait to see what the actual truth is. If you want the truth from the media you always have to wait. Gives me time to fix a sandwich. :duel

 

[ShamMol]

No offense, but right now the President is "desperate" as you put it to show that he cares and is doing his job. What is it now-7 trips to the gulf region in a week? We get it dude, you are on the job....great. Basically, the Dems are opposing right now because they can. You may say...no! They can't oppose, but when the President's approval numbers go into the 30s and 40s, that means that they automatically become attack machines. Live with it.

And Gordon...David Drier was the presumed choice-which FOX, AP, everyone was reporting would take over most of the responsibilities. Well, he is taking over some, just not as much as they originally thought. Basically, to you, they are never allowed to be wrong, but that is of no great surprise. Wow...I just defended FOX.

Now, onto Roberts. I am shocked that he got that many no votes. The Dems know that this is not the fight they need to fight and I am astounded that they would be so callous as to assume the American public will continue to be angry with the President. Basically-Roberts was a conservative, but one we can live with (as a mod lib myself)...the fight is now to replace the mod conservative seat that OConnor is leaving. Since Roberts was replacing a conservative witha conservative, then he was bound to face less opposition.

The battle the Dems need to focus on is the next one. The next battle to come is the one to replace O'Connor-and that is where they need to focus their attention. As my government professor put it-"It will be high holy hell for both sides and as a Republican, I think that the Democrats are going to need to fight tooth to nail." He was dead on. If Bush picks an Alberto Gonzales or Janice Rogers Brown, as qualified legally as they may be, the Dems need to put that aside and say-we need to protect the citizens we hold office to protect. That simple.

 

[Deegan]

No offense, but right now the President is "desperate" as you put it to show that he cares and is doing his job. What is it now-7 trips to the gulf region in a week? We get it dude, you are on the job....great. Basically, the Dems are opposing right now because they can. You may say...no! They can't oppose, but when the President's approval numbers go into the 30s and 40s, that means that they automatically become attack machines. Live with it.

And Gordon...David Drier was the presumed choice-which FOX, AP, everyone was reporting would take over most of the responsibilities. Well, he is taking over some, just not as much as they originally thought. Basically, to you, they are never allowed to be wrong, but that is of no great surprise. Wow...I just defended FOX.

Now, onto Roberts. I am shocked that he got that many no votes. The Dems know that this is not the fight they need to fight and I am astounded that they would be so callous as to assume the American public will continue to be angry with the President. Basically-Roberts was a conservative, but one we can live with (as a mod lib myself)...the fight is now to replace the mod conservative seat that OConnor is leaving. Since Roberts was replacing a conservative witha conservative, then he was bound to face less opposition.

The battle the Dems need to focus on is the next one. The next battle to come is the one to replace O'Connor-and that is where they need to focus their attention. As my government professor put it-"It will be high holy hell for both sides and as a Republican, I think that the Democrats are going to need to fight tooth to nail." He was dead on. If Bush picks an Alberto Gonzales or Janice Rogers Brown, as qualified legally as they may be, the Dems need to put that aside and say-we need to protect the citizens we hold office to protect. That simple.

Can you dig deep in your heart and mind, and explain why a Ginsberg gets a 96 to 3, and a Roberts gets a 78 to 22, why? Someone please explain this to me, a woman who suggested we need to allow men and women to be integrated in our prisons, or that the fed should pay for abortion, or that the government should allow bigomy, just for starters. Oh, and my personal fav. All children should have sex at twelve, how did this nut get through with such a non-partisan vote?

Answer, we are better then you, more responsible, more traditonal, less partisan, you really look like crap today, good luck in 06 and 08!

 

[ShamMol]

Can you dig deep in your heart and mind, and explain why a Ginsberg gets a 96 to 3, and a Roberts gets a 78 to 22, why? Someone please explain this to me, a woman who suggested we need to allow men and women to be integrated in our prisons, or that the fed should pay for abortion, or that the government should allow bigomy, just for starters. Oh, and my personal fav. All children should have sex at twelve, how did this nut get through with such a non-partisan vote?

To quote Jon Stewart-the time for old ways of doing things ended when Clinton left office. And the other quote I can do..."You can act like a nut, but not look like one." Those were the old rules and now that we have entered into the time of partisanship, where a nuclear option is even an option. Basically-all rules are out and that is the same for when and if the Dems are in power and the Repubs are not. I don't think we will ever go back to the days where Sueter and Ginsburg get votes in the 80s and the 90s.

But to be honest, the Republicans started this process off in 1994 by opposing lower court nominees for no reason whatsoever (led in their efforts by Trent, good old party himself). Basically, the Repubs and Dems started down this road and will not return and both sides will blame each other. I blame Trent, you will most likely blame the fillibusters, and it won't change-especially the fact that we will not go back to the old way of appointing judges.

Hope that was clear.

Answer, we are better then you, more responsible, more traditonal, less partisan, you really look like crap today, good luck in 06 and 08!

Good luck to you too. I just can't wait to see how people are going to not ride the coatails of the president like they did in the 02 and 04 elections, especially seeing the most recent Ohio election where a Republican who was slated to get 20% more than her Dem opponent only won by 2% or 3%. Why did she only win by the much even though outspending her opponent outrageously, even though she had the same policies as the President (AND SAID SO), had more time to campaign than her opponent (who was in Iraq for the vast part of her campaign), etc, etc. Basically, Republicans will have to win office on their own again and stop relying on the President.

But what you said was a personal attack, so the chances that any of what I just told you will sink in are unlikely, isn't that right?

 

[AK_Conservative]

Can you dig deep in your heart and mind, and explain why a Ginsberg gets a 96 to 3, and a Roberts gets a 78 to 22, why? Someone please explain this to me, a woman who suggested we need to allow men and women to be integrated in our prisons, or that the fed should pay for abortion, or that the government should allow bigomy, just for starters. Oh, and my personal fav. All children should have sex at twelve, how did this nut get through with such a non-partisan vote?

Answer, we are better then you, more responsible, more traditonal, less partisan, you really look like crap today, good luck in 06 and 08!

:rofl GREAT POST! as my political opinion goes, i always try to look at both sides! As many LIEberals and some conservatives i must say, not as many as the Lieberals, do not take into account true politics. They would rather sieze improvements and sieze national growth to stop the republican part than to actually get down to business and solve problems this nation-state has!

 

[Deegan]

To quote Jon Stewart-the time for old ways of doing things ended when Clinton left office. And the other quote I can do..."You can act like a nut, but not look like one." Those were the old rules and now that we have entered into the time of partisanship, where a nuclear option is even an option. Basically-all rules are out and that is the same for when and if the Dems are in power and the Repubs are not. I don't think we will ever go back to the days where Sueter and Ginsburg get votes in the 80s and the 90s.

But to be honest, the Republicans started this process off in 1994 by opposing lower court nominees for no reason whatsoever (led in their efforts by Trent, good old party himself). Basically, the Repubs and Dems started down this road and will not return and both sides will blame each other. I blame Trent, you will most likely blame the fillibusters, and it won't change-especially the fact that we will not go back to the old way of appointing judges.

Hope that was clear.

Good luck to you too. I just can't wait to see how people are going to not ride the coatails of the president like they did in the 02 and 04 elections, especially seeing the most recent Ohio election where a Republican who was slated to get 20% more than her Dem opponent only won by 2% or 3%. Why did she only win by the much even though outspending her opponent outrageously, even though she had the same policies as the President (AND SAID SO), had more time to campaign than her opponent (who was in Iraq for the vast part of her campaign), etc, etc. Basically, Republicans will have to win office on their own again and stop relying on the President.

But what you said was a personal attack, so the chances that any of what I just told you will sink in are unlikely, isn't that right?

LOL, it is sad that more and more Dems are quoting Stewart these days, it really shows the place in which you find yourselves, a comedy of errors.

The reason so many were held up is simple, they were more nuts then this nut! You offer only loons, so we must finally settle on the lesser loon, too bad that was Ginsberg.

 

[gordontravels]

No offense, but right now the President is "desperate" as you put it to show that he cares and is doing his job. What is it now-7 trips to the gulf region in a week? We get it dude, you are on the job....great. Basically, the Dems are opposing right now because they can. You may say...no! They can't oppose, but when the President's approval numbers go into the 30s and 40s, that means that they automatically become attack machines. Live with it.

And Gordon...David Drier was the presumed choice-which FOX, AP, everyone was reporting would take over most of the responsibilities. Well, he is taking over some, just not as much as they originally thought. Basically, to you, they are never allowed to be wrong, but that is of no great surprise. Wow...I just defended FOX.

Now, onto Roberts. I am shocked that he got that many no votes. The Dems know that this is not the fight they need to fight and I am astounded that they would be so callous as to assume the American public will continue to be angry with the President. Basically-Roberts was a conservative, but one we can live with (as a mod lib myself)...the fight is now to replace the mod conservative seat that OConnor is leaving. Since Roberts was replacing a conservative witha conservative, then he was bound to face less opposition.

The battle the Dems need to focus on is the next one. The next battle to come is the one to replace O'Connor-and that is where they need to focus their attention. As my government professor put it-"It will be high holy hell for both sides and as a Republican, I think that the Democrats are going to need to fight tooth to nail." He was dead on. If Bush picks an Alberto Gonzales or Janice Rogers Brown, as qualified legally as they may be, the Dems need to put that aside and say-we need to protect the citizens we hold office to protect. That simple.

You must learn to read. I didn't say the president was "desperate" and don't believe he is anymore than the Governor or Mayor of New Orleans are. No one is going to pay for mistakes made by everyone. The people have already paid and now we get to pay for the reconstruction of a city built below sea level on the Gulf of Mexico in the path of hurricanes. If you do read me, what do you think about our 200 Billion Plus going for something like this?

The Democrats had a golden opportunity to question former FEMA Director Brown. They boycotted so later they can use him for political purposes. Tell me? Is this the way to get the people that didn't vote for Kerry to vote for Hillary? Is this the way you would go about it?

The Democrats aren't opposing because they can. The Democrats at the leadership level are opposing everything that has anything to do with Republican. This is why the two party system is a sham and those who take a partisan approach such as you do are only spurring on the inadequate system. Why not look for a middle road, you who say you are a moderate liberal, instead of singing the praise of opposition. Why not let both sides get some of what they want which would be at least doing the work we send them to do for their inflated, non Social Security retirement they have earned? Earned?

As for Fox or AP or any others you may cite, I didn't cite any by name. And yes. If any outlet is going to be reporting a decision has been made then I would definitely expect them to be right. You don't? Go your way then, I expect more of professionals. Why not report maybe? Why not report it as speculation? You think our media should report as fact that which isn't and then say "Basically, to you, they are never allowed to be wrong, but that is of no great surprise." Yes, don't be surprised because I hold them to a standard they supposedly set for themselves. I expect fair and accurate reporting and don't see it consistently from CNN to Fox News Channel. So? Don't they want you and me to listen?

So you want a woman appointed because a woman is being replaced? So you believe that a conservative replaces a conservative a woman should replace a woman? Or am I putting words in your mouth as you do with me. I personally would like to see a qualified choice. President Bush is just that; president. I would like to see a judge that can do the job without all the concern over "Roe v Wade" which is settled law. President Clinton got many more votes from Republicans for Ruth Bader Ginsberg and she worked for the ACLU. I say if you want a conservative to replace a conservative then you should let a Republican replace a judge just as the Republican did in appointing the original judge in the first place. I think what's fair is fair and President Bush shouldn't have to appoint someone unless he wants them.

Your professor seems a bit tilted. The media you think should be allowed to make mistakes is already reporting that the Democrats are threatening to fillabuster "ANY" nominee the president puts up. Any nominee. It isn't the individual or the philosophy or the record because there is no announced nominee. It's because it's a Republican doing the appointing and the Democrats simply want a fight. This is a waste of our political capital and if a nominee is actually nominated and they want to fight it that's fine. But, the media you think can make mistakes and it's ok is saying the Democrats will fillabuster any nominee.

Anyone can make a mistake but there are no mistakes here. Just your perception that making them is ok. Sorry, I disagree. :duel

 

[ShamMol]

LOL, it is sad that more and more Dems are quoting Stewart these days, it really shows the place in which you find yourselves, a comedy of errors.

The reason so many were held up is simple, they were more nuts then this nut! You offer only loons, so we must finally settle on the lesser loon, too bad that was Ginsberg.

Since you didn't respond...

To quote Jon Stewart-the time for old ways of doing things ended when Clinton left office. And the other quote I can do..."You can act like a nut, but not look like one." Those were the old rules and now that we have entered into the time of partisanship, where a nuclear option is even an option. Basically-all rules are out and that is the same for when and if the Dems are in power and the Repubs are not. I don't think we will ever go back to the days where Sueter and Ginsburg get votes in the 80s and the 90s.

But to be honest, the Republicans started this process off in 1994 by opposing lower court nominees for no reason whatsoever (led in their efforts by Trent, good old party himself). Basically, the Repubs and Dems started down this road and will not return and both sides will blame each other. I blame Trent, you will most likely blame the fillibusters, and it won't change-especially the fact that we will not go back to the old way of appointing judges.

Hope that was clear.

Good luck to you too. I just can't wait to see how people are going to not ride the coatails of the president like they did in the 02 and 04 elections, especially seeing the most recent Ohio election where a Republican who was slated to get 20% more than her Dem opponent only won by 2% or 3%. Why did she only win by the much even though outspending her opponent outrageously, even though she had the same policies as the President (AND SAID SO), had more time to campaign than her opponent (who was in Iraq for the vast part of her campaign), etc, etc. Basically, Republicans will have to win office on their own again and stop relying on the President.

But what you said was a personal attack, so the chances that any of what I just told you will sink in are unlikely, isn't that right?

 

[Deegan]

Since you didn't respond...

To quote Jon Stewart-the time for old ways of doing things ended when Clinton left office. And the other quote I can do..."You can act like a nut, but not look like one." Those were the old rules and now that we have entered into the time of partisanship, where a nuclear option is even an option. Basically-all rules are out and that is the same for when and if the Dems are in power and the Repubs are not. I don't think we will ever go back to the days where Sueter and Ginsburg get votes in the 80s and the 90s.

But to be honest, the Republicans started this process off in 1994 by opposing lower court nominees for no reason whatsoever (led in their efforts by Trent, good old party himself). Basically, the Repubs and Dems started down this road and will not return and both sides will blame each other. I blame Trent, you will most likely blame the fillibusters, and it won't change-especially the fact that we will not go back to the old way of appointing judges.

Hope that was clear.

Good luck to you too. I just can't wait to see how people are going to not ride the coatails of the president like they did in the 02 and 04 elections, especially seeing the most recent Ohio election where a Republican who was slated to get 20% more than her Dem opponent only won by 2% or 3%. Why did she only win by the much even though outspending her opponent outrageously, even though she had the same policies as the President (AND SAID SO), had more time to campaign than her opponent (who was in Iraq for the vast part of her campaign), etc, etc. Basically, Republicans will have to win office on their own again and stop relying on the President.

But what you said was a personal attack, so the chances that any of what I just told you will sink in are unlikely, isn't that right?

It was answered, and you only replied with assumptions, does John Stewart know what will transpire in the future, I don't think so. I think the votes speak for themselves, if they were so dead set on killing the nomination of Pres. Clinton, would the tally be 96 to 3? No, of course not, and only a fool, or a fool paid to be a fool would attempt to make such a ridiculous assumption. Still, as I said before, you poor bastards are reaching for any life line you can grab, even if it comes from a comedy program, again, very sad.

 

[Caine]

This is a great victory for the president and for his legacy...

It shoud have been 100-0 but the usuual suspects Kennedy, Kerry, and Clinton voted no......They have to please the far left of the democratic party.......

Legacy? And what is your opinion of that "Legacy".
Personally I think Bush is a retard, but everyone is allowed thier personal opinion.

As for Roberts. Even though I am a Democrat and slightly Liberal, you extreme conservative people who like to generalize we who are not like you will probably think that I disagree with Roberts. I watched most of the coverage of the hearings and all that for him, and I found him to be an acceptable Justice. He dosen't seem like he is going to be an activist, and all this stuff about what he did in his past, well, those documents were written for a purpose but taken out of context as his personal opinions.

But, as for this Navy Guy, do you ever NOT agree with Bush, most of the posts I have seen on here from you have all been in total agreement with Bush, and please correct me if I am wrong (that wasn't meant to be sarcastic.. really i haven't been around too long so I haven't seen all your posts).

 

[Navy Pride]

No offense, but right now the President is "desperate" as you put it to show that he cares and is doing his job. What is it now-7 trips to the gulf region in a week? We get it dude, you are on the job....great. Basically, the Dems are opposing right now because they can. You may say...no! They can't oppose, but when the President's approval numbers go into the 30s and 40s, that means that they automatically become attack machines. Live with it.

And Gordon...David Drier was the presumed choice-which FOX, AP, everyone was reporting would take over most of the responsibilities. Well, he is taking over some, just not as much as they originally thought. Basically, to you, they are never allowed to be wrong, but that is of no great surprise. Wow...I just defended FOX.

Now, onto Roberts. I am shocked that he got that many no votes. The Dems know that this is not the fight they need to fight and I am astounded that they would be so callous as to assume the American public will continue to be angry with the President. Basically-Roberts was a conservative, but one we can live with (as a mod lib myself)...the fight is now to replace the mod conservative seat that OConnor is leaving. Since Roberts was replacing a conservative witha conservative, then he was bound to face less opposition.

The battle the Dems need to focus on is the next one. The next battle to come is the one to replace O'Connor-and that is where they need to focus their attention. As my government professor put it-"It will be high holy hell for both sides and as a Republican, I think that the Democrats are going to need to fight tooth to nail." He was dead on. If Bush picks an Alberto Gonzales or Janice Rogers Brown, as qualified legally as they may be, the Dems need to put that aside and say-we need to protect the citizens we hold office to protect. That simple.

[ShamMol]No offense, but right now the President is "desperate" as you put it to show that he cares and is doing his job. What is it now-7 trips to the gulf region in a week? /QUOTE]


When it comes to pleasing you Bush haters there is really very little this president can do short of committing suicide to please you.......After Katrina you complained the president did very little to take on hands action, now after Rita he is there 7 times directing the operation and you criticize him for that..............It is a no win situation with you on the far left and the president knows that.........

 

[Caine]

When it comes to pleasing you Bush haters there is really very little this president can do short of committing suicide to please you.......After Katrina you complained the president did very little to take on hands action, now after Rita he is there 7 times directing the operation and you criticize him for that..............It is a no win situation with you on the far left and the president knows that.........

And This goes the same in reverse.....The Far Right nutjobs are always going to be opposed to any of the ideals and ideas of the Far Left.... Thats why they are FAR. Hell, when it comes to that, Far Rights disagree with Middle-Rights and Far Lefts disagree with Middle-Left on certain issues.

 

[Navy Pride]

And This goes the same in reverse.....The Far Right nutjobs are always going to be opposed to any of the ideals and ideas of the Far Left.... Thats why they are FAR. Hell, when it comes to that, Far Rights disagree with Middle-Rights and Far Lefts disagree with Middle-Left on certain issues.

Well you see in this country right now we have a Conservative president and congress so what that has to tell you is that the American voter rejects the principles of the far left and accepts the principles of moderates and conservatives........

If you don't like that try to get far left nut jobs elected.........Good luck.......Its not going to happen.......

 

[Caine]

Well you see in this country right now we have a Conservative president and congress so what that has to tell you is that the American voter rejects the principles of the far left and accepts the principles of moderates and conservatives........

If you don't like that try to get far left nut jobs elected.........Good luck.......Its not going to happen.......

Well, Personally Im not a fan of the Far left idiots... Im actually slightly left, so I wouldn't want some crazy far left democrat making my political party look bad.

Conservatives obviously don't care, i mean.. look at Bush

 

[Navy Pride]

Well, Personally Im not a fan of the Far left idiots... Im actually slightly left, so I wouldn't want some crazy far left democrat making my political party look bad.

Conservatives obviously don't care, i mean.. look at Bush

Well offer solutions to the issues, not just critcisms of the president....That is all you people on the left can do

 

[gordontravels]

Legacy? And what is your opinion of that "Legacy".
Personally I think Bush is a retard, but everyone is allowed thier personal opinion.

As for Roberts. Even though I am a Democrat and slightly Liberal, you extreme conservative people who like to generalize we who are not like you will probably think that I disagree with Roberts. I watched most of the coverage of the hearings and all that for him, and I found him to be an acceptable Justice. He dosen't seem like he is going to be an activist, and all this stuff about what he did in his past, well, those documents were written for a purpose but taken out of context as his personal opinions.

But, as for this Navy Guy, do you ever NOT agree with Bush, most of the posts I have seen on here from you have all been in total agreement with Bush, and please correct me if I am wrong (that wasn't meant to be sarcastic.. really i haven't been around too long so I haven't seen all your posts).

You say you are a Democrat and "slightly liberal"? Then you label the president as "a retard" in the face of all liberals and conservatives here and still want to say you are only "slightly liberal"? Even though you would hide behind "personal opinion" you are as partisan as a liberal can get and, not "slightly" as your rhetoric shows. Words mean something you know?

I agree with you on Judge Roberts but that must mean you think the Democrat leadership of this country is out of step with the majority which I also believe. Hillary Clinton voted against him but why? The outcome of political races on average show that the conservatives or Republicans are doing better than the other side of the isle or they approach the issues from a standpoint that earns the majority. Earning it is something I think the Democrats need to learn. The more negative you are in a time when the country is pounded by negativity in both situations and from the media, the more you push people away from you and your cause. Democrats need to know that don't they?

Here's one guaranteed to create controversy. I believe the country, with the cost of energy, the ageing of the population and the political climate, is becoming more conservative. It's easy to spend and put off when you are young and immortal but as the population ages they realize that the years they look back on are shorter than those coming. This, I believe will lead to a more conservative country and this will transpose to politics. Tell me I'm wrong but after electing Bill Clinton, from the next elections on, Republicans took over. That is fact.

I say that if the Democrats want to follow John Stewart and Barbara Striesand then go ahead. Just don't expect a more conservative landscape to hide your cattle. Don't expect to attract conservative minded people you would need to help the Democrat Party. That won't work although the Democrat Party can't win without the very people they call "retards". :duel

 

[Navy Pride]

You say you are a Democrat and "slightly liberal"? Then you label the president as "a retard" in the face of all liberals and conservatives here and still want to say you are only "slightly liberal"? Even though you would hide behind "personal opinion" you are as partisan as a liberal can get and, not "slightly" as your rhetoric shows. Words mean something you know?

Gordon, he is either in a total state of denial or has no clue on the principles a Conservative stands for...I believe it is the latter.........

Anyhow I have grown weary of telling him that so this will be my last post on his political leanings.......

You hit the nail right on the head though......

 

[Caine]

You say you are a Democrat and "slightly liberal"? Then you label the president as "a retard" in the face of all liberals and conservatives here and still want to say you are only "slightly liberal"? Even though you would hide behind "personal opinion" you are as partisan as a liberal can get and, not "slightly" as your rhetoric shows. Words mean something you know?

Umm... Maybe Im wrong here but President Bush is just a man.. one man who makes alot of mistakes. I know serveral Registered Republicans who I used to work with (I was in the Army until two months ago, ETSed) Who were all about President Bush, but now even they disagree with many of his actions and are starting to call him a "retard"

So, what you are trying to say is that, no matter how you look at the important issues, if you don't like Bush that immediately mades you an extreme left wing liberal?

He is just one man, and personally isnt a good representation of the Republican party... if he is a good representation, it looks like Democrats are going to win the next elections, if they don't have another idiot run like 2004 since his approval ratings are extremely low.

 

[Deegan]

I think 78-22 was a fair vote. He's a brilliant man, and I think it's clear that he's got a great respect for the law, but I think there should be votes against him based solely on his desire to not answer questions. We can't accept that.

And before you cons start crapping your pants and calling your mommies, I think the same should apply to whoever being appointed to whatever. If you're asked a question, frickin answer it. If you're asked to provide documents relevent to your previous experience in this or a similar field, frickin provide it.

Think about it. I applied for an internship. I needed to provide my resume, my transcript, a urine test, my criminal background, FBI checks, and answer everything I'm asked, everything.
And God knows if they asked me for anything else, I would've provided it.

Now here's a man essentially applying for one of the most important jobs in this country, a job he will have for the rest of his life, and he's not answering questions.

Navy Pride, that'd be like when you were applying for your current job, and they said "What's your opinion on how to work the deep fryer" and you said "I can't answer that, based on the fact that I may in fact need to use the deep fryer at some point in the future."

Like Ginsberg you mean? Do your homework friend.

 

[Navy Pride]

I think 78-22 was a fair vote. He's a brilliant man, and I think it's clear that he's got a great respect for the law, but I think there should be votes against him based solely on his desire to not answer questions. We can't accept that.

And before you cons start crapping your pants and calling your mommies, I think the same should apply to whoever being appointed to whatever. If you're asked a question, frickin answer it. If you're asked to provide documents relevent to your previous experience in this or a similar field, frickin provide it.

Think about it. I applied for an internship. I needed to provide my resume, my transcript, a urine test, my criminal background, FBI checks, and answer everything I'm asked, everything.
And God knows if they asked me for anything else, I would've provided it.

Now here's a man essentially applying for one of the most important jobs in this country, a job he will have for the rest of his life, and he's not answering questions.

Navy Pride, that'd be like when you were applying for your current job, and they said "What's your opinion on how to work the deep fryer" and you said "I can't answer that, based on the fact that I may in fact need to use the deep fryer at some point in the future."

I just wonder when Ginsberg was up for confirmation that Biden and other dems told her she did not have to answer any questions where she might to to rule on a further case in front of the court.........

Oh wait, that was a democrat president and a liberal justice.........My bad.........:roll:

 

[Caine]

I just wonder when Ginsberg was up for confirmation that Biden and other dems told her she did not have to answer any questions where she might to to rule on a further case in front of the court.........

Oh wait, that was a democrat president and a liberal justice.........My bad.........:roll:

Umm... Ginsberg was confirmed 96-3
Obviously some Republicans thought she was suitable