Roberts confirmed

[Navy Pride]

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

I guess republicans don't play dirty pool like dems....

 

[Navy Pride]

see, that's what I was talking about. She should've answered the damn questions too! I don't see why the senate tolerates this ****!
Pardon my sailor speech, but I felt the situation merited it.

So let me understand your thinking my friend...........You think a nominee should tell he might rule on a case in the future before he has even seen the facts of the case?

 

[Caine]

I guess republicans don't play dirty pool like dems....

Do you have anything positive to say?

 

[Navy Pride]

Do you have anything positive to say?

Yes I am so glad that Roberts got confirmed as Chief Justice today and can't wait for the President to announce his other replacement...

As we use to say aboard ship when the seas got rough: "Stand by for heavy rolls to port."

 

[Caine]

Yes I am so glad that Roberts got confirmed as Chief Justice today and can't wait for the President to announce his other replacement...

As we use to say aboard ship when the seas got rough: "Stand by for heavy rolls to port."

Well thats nice....
Although I disagree with your signature line.
By the way, you never answered me in one of my other posts... do you ever disagree with the President?

 

[gordontravels]

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.

As I tell others. Read my words and you hear what I am saying instead of trying to tell me. The idea that anyone would call the President of the United States a retard is shameful. I happen to disagree with many things that President Bush, President Clinton and I'll name every president going back to Richard Nixon if you will. I have agreed and disagreed with them all but to label a man in that position a retard? I'm sorry, I don't stoop that low.

I fought in the Vietnam War under a Democrat President that didn't know how to conduct a war and relied on his Democrat advisors, civilians, over his military men. I was almost killed numerous times and times I don't even know about I'm sure. Was he a "retard"? No. He was my Commander in Chief; my president.

The use of the word "extreme" is your word and I didn't use it. You want me to say more than I have but it didn't happen and won't. Again, just read my words and stop trying to make me a Republican/conservative or Democrat/liberal. I'm not either thank God.

I just heard Dick Gregory of NBC News talk about how careful the president needs to be in his next nomination. I think he only needs to nominate a qualified person and if the Democrats want to go negative then so be it. It has only helped the Republicans in the past.

You even label John Kerry as an "idiot" and he was the best the Democrats could find? If you want to use "retard" which is a derogatory term at best or "idiot" to forward your arguements, don't you think people will think about you? You say "So, what you are trying to say..." while using terms that lower your arguements as low as can be? I say why don't you read my words and not tell me what I'm saying but read what I'm saying. That's what I do for you and you hurt your own arguements by showing your true colors.

Name calling on any level is the weakest arguement of the partisan and turns "slightly liberal" into "yeah sure". :duel

 

[Caine]

As I tell others. Read my words and you hear what I am saying instead of trying to tell me. The idea that anyone would call the President of the United States a retard is shameful. I happen to disagree with many things that President Bush, President Clinton and I'll name every president going back to Richard Nixon if you will. I have agreed and disagreed with them all but to label a man in that position a retard? I'm sorry, I don't stoop that low.

I fought in the Vietnam War under a Democrat President that didn't know how to conduct a war and relied on his Democrat advisors, civilians, over his military men. I was almost killed numerous times and times I don't even know about I'm sure. Was he a "retard"? No. He was my Commander in Chief; my president.

The use of the word "extreme" is your word and I didn't use it. You want me to say more than I have but it didn't happen and won't. Again, just read my words and stop trying to make me a Republican/conservative or Democrat/liberal. I'm not either thank God.

I just heard Dick Gregory of NBC News talk about how careful the president needs to be in his next nomination. I think he only needs to nominate a qualified person and if the Democrats want to go negative then so be it. It has only helped the Republicans in the past.

You even label John Kerry as an "idiot" and he was the best the Democrats could find? If you want to use "retard" which is a derogatory term at best or "idiot" to forward your arguements, don't you think people will think about you? You say "So, what you are trying to say..." while using terms that lower your arguements as low as can be? I say why don't you read my words and not tell me what I'm saying but read what I'm saying. That's what I do for you and you hurt your own arguements by showing your true colors.

Name calling on any level is the weakest arguement of the partisan and turns "slightly liberal" into "yeah sure". :duel

I'll bet you probably didn't expect this type of response from me, but.
Your right. Using the words idiot and retard are wrong, and they don't help my arguments. I'll try not to use words like that in any furthur posts. Thanks (Im not being sarcastic). But what I should have really said was that I don't think Kerry was the right man for the job. Yes, its my opinion, im a definate nobody when it comes to that decision, but that is my opinion. As for Bush, I also think that he is not qualified for the job. Bush and Cheney both seem like Businessmen more than Politicians, if you look at thier past. But reguardless he is there and making a great deal of mistakes, but everyone makes mistakes, im not saying things would be better or worse if a Democrat were in office.

As for the "He was my commander-in-chief" thing. I can't agree to thinking that way because although I may have been in the military, I am still an American, and have the right to disagree or agree with whomever I chose, which Is why it upsets me when I would see other soldiers getting punished or just lectured when they voiced thier opinion about the President.

 

[gordontravels]

I'll bet you probably didn't expect this type of response from me, but.
Your right. Using the words idiot and retard are wrong, and they don't help my arguments. I'll try not to use words like that in any furthur posts. Thanks (Im not being sarcastic). But what I should have really said was that I don't think Kerry was the right man for the job. Yes, its my opinion, im a definate nobody when it comes to that decision, but that is my opinion. As for Bush, I also think that he is not qualified for the job. Bush and Cheney both seem like Businessmen more than Politicians, if you look at thier past. But reguardless he is there and making a great deal of mistakes, but everyone makes mistakes, im not saying things would be better or worse if a Democrat were in office.

As for the "He was my commander-in-chief" thing. I can't agree to thinking that way because although I may have been in the military, I am still an American, and have the right to disagree or agree with whomever I chose, which Is why it upsets me when I would see other soldiers getting punished or just lectured when they voiced thier opinion about the President.

A post I can agree with if not completely but, agree with.

I have said before: Bush vs. Gore; Kerry vs. Bush. This is the best the Democrats and Republicans can do for a country of 285 million people? And what's next? Hillary? Frist? Hey how about DELAY the election until the right person is born?

Seriously. I lay all the problems right at the feet of the Republicans and Democrats that support Republicans and Democrats. If we were allowed to register non-partisan and make them work for our votes don't you think they might get serious about getting the job done? I have never voted against anyone. I have always voted either for or skipped that portion of the ballot. Why shouldn't we expect our politicians to do better.

My Commander in Chief comment didn't mean I stopped thinking. It means I took an oath and lived up to it for 3 years. I am still bound by that oath and will be like all other military men until I die. You have someone like Robert McNamara that left us hanging out to dry in Vietnam? I think he and Johnson were dispicable in their decisions and actions. However, as Commander in Chief, mine is not to question why, mine is to do or die - even if I disagree. A soldier that voices disagreement with his officers when under lawful orders is breaking his oath and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. If he doesn't realize that then "ignorance is no excuse". When he gets out he can quarterback all he wants but while in, he takes the ball and runs with it like he was trained to do. There is no draft, these guys serve at will.

I believe John Roberts is qualified to do the job he was chosen and voted into. Chris Mathews on MSNBC thinks that because the Republicans were united in their support and the Democrats were divided down the middle, the Republicans have a problem. That's like how the media treated the "loser" in Ohio, the Iraq Vet that called the President "evil". I don't care if he lost by an inch or a yard, he lost. The media treated him like he won but, he's faded now. It's the old fish fry mentality and which is the biggest.

Imagine, the Republicans stick together and they have trouble while the Democrats are 22 to 22 and doesn't that mean they are so independent? Do you think if the Republicans had been 25 to 25 the media would see their independence or would they still be in trouble? Come on; be honest. :duel

 

[Deegan]

A post I can agree with if not completely but, agree with.

I have said before: Bush vs. Gore; Kerry vs. Bush. This is the best the Democrats and Republicans can do for a country of 285 million people? And what's next? Hillary? Frist? Hey how about DELAY the election until the right person is born?

Seriously. I lay all the problems right at the feet of the Republicans and Democrats that support Republicans and Democrats. If we were allowed to register non-partisan and make them work for our votes don't you think they might get serious about getting the job done? I have never voted against anyone. I have always voted either for or skipped that portion of the ballot. Why shouldn't we expect our politicians to do better.

My Commander in Chief comment didn't mean I stopped thinking. It means I took an oath and lived up to it for 3 years. I am still bound by that oath and will be like all other military men until I die. You have someone like Robert McNamara that left us hanging out to dry in Vietnam? I think he and Johnson were dispicable in their decisions and actions. However, as Commander in Chief, mine is not to question why, mine is to do or die - even if I disagree. A soldier that voices disagreement with his officers when under lawful orders is breaking his oath and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. If he doesn't realize that then "ignorance is no excuse". When he gets out he can quarterback all he wants but while in, he takes the ball and runs with it like he was trained to do. There is no draft, these guys serve at will.

I believe John Roberts is qualified to do the job he was chosen and voted into. Chris Mathews on MSNBC thinks that because the Republicans were united in their support and the Democrats were divided down the middle, the Republicans have a problem. That's like how the media treated the "loser" in Ohio, the Iraq Vet that called the President "evil". I don't care if he lost by an inch or a yard, he lost. The media treated him like he won but, he's faded now. It's the old fish fry mentality and which is the biggest.

Imagine, the Republicans stick together and they have trouble while the Democrats are 22 to 22 and doesn't that mean they are so independent? Do you think if the Republicans had been 25 to 25 the media would see their independence or would they still be in trouble? Come on; be honest. :duel

Golden......I see a problem there

 

[DeeJayH]

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

the fact he was confirmed was not a surprise
what was a surprise was by how many votes, and how many Dems joined in
no surprise who voted against him either really

 

[Navy Pride]

Well thats nice....
Although I disagree with your signature line.
By the way, you never answered me in one of my other posts... do you ever disagree with the President?

Ah, I believe this thread is about the Roberts confirmation...There are other threads about those subjects that I have commented on......Nice try though to change the subject.....

 

[Navy Pride]

I truly believe that the confirmation of John Roberts as Chief Justice as a huge victory for Conservatives and Moderates in this country and a huge defeat for our friends on the left.........

 

[DeeJayH]

hopefully we are returning to the days of ruling on whether something is constitutional or not
and getting away from looking to foreign lands to justify opinions of the court

 

[gordontravels]

hopefully we are returning to the days of ruling on whether something is constitutional or not
and getting away from looking to foreign lands to justify opinions of the court

I saw Roberts in his questioning when he said he would not use decisions of foreign courts other than as information. He noted he would rule the way he thought the Constitution provided and not attempt to make law beyond Constitutionality.

It is notable that one of the reasons Senator from California, Barbara Boxer, said today that she didn't vote for him is that he would ignore international law. I saw his testimony live; he never said that. :duel

 

[ShamMol]

]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 did not label him as a retard, even though I do not think he is that intelligent. I am a mod liberal as I have found out lately being exposed to the rampant liberalness around me. I even formed a Centrists club to combat the Democrats and League of Pissed Off Voters with several Republicans. Your words obviously mean something and I would normally respond a lot more to you, except that damn font...hate it. But you are intelligent and thus I like conversing with you.

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?

Hillary is not the Democratic leadership-and leadership doesn't matter to be quite honest. Ever since the candidates mattered more than the party, the leadership hasn't mattered nearly as much meaning people can vote how they want. I identify as a Dem, but that doesn't mean I have to follow what they do-same for the members of the Senate. The Dems can do what they want, but I will focus on what I want... But to adress your point on negativity. Time and time again it has been proven that when a large organization such as a party can muster the troops to attack the other side, it usually succeeds.

Basically, the Dems have been kicked down so repeatedly that basically this is their first time to attack in a very long time. If I were a strategist-now is the time to pounce because that is what a smart politician would do. Basically, in politics, when you aren't trying to work with the other side (and let's face it, they have no desire-either side-to work with the other) then you kick them while they are down-the Republcians are down and as a political strategist woudl say, "Go for the nads."

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.

That is a fact, but the fact also remains to see what will happen in the next election. It is a fact that you don't know the conservative trend that started with the centrist Bill will continue. I think I might tend to agree that as they get older they get more socially conservative, but also consider that as the population gets older, they are going to want social programs that benefit them...and that iwll come from Dems, not Repubs as we saw with the failed drug plan.

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".

I hate barb...Jon Stewart makes me laugh, which is more than I can say for Hillary or Obama. I didn't use the word retard in my post though. Don't know where you came up with that. I did the Cntrl+F thing and it didn't turn up, anywhere. But anyway, I don't look to Jon for political leadership, just cheap laughs-much like Brit Hume, though for completely different reasons.

 

[gordontravels]

I did not label him as a retard, even though I do not think he is that intelligent. I am a mod liberal as I have found out lately being exposed to the rampant liberalness around me. I even formed a Centrists club to combat the Democrats and League of Pissed Off Voters with several Republicans. Your words obviously mean something and I would normally respond a lot more to you, except that damn font...hate it. But you are intelligent and thus I like conversing with you.
Hillary is not the Democratic leadership-and leadership doesn't matter to be quite honest. Ever since the candidates mattered more than the party, the leadership hasn't mattered nearly as much meaning people can vote how they want. I identify as a Dem, but that doesn't mean I have to follow what they do-same for the members of the Senate. The Dems can do what they want, but I will focus on what I want... But to adress your point on negativity. Time and time again it has been proven that when a large organization such as a party can muster the troops to attack the other side, it usually succeeds.

Basically, the Dems have been kicked down so repeatedly that basically this is their first time to attack in a very long time. If I were a strategist-now is the time to pounce because that is what a smart politician would do. Basically, in politics, when you aren't trying to work with the other side (and let's face it, they have no desire-either side-to work with the other) then you kick them while they are down-the Republcians are down and as a political strategist woudl say, "Go for the nads."
That is a fact, but the fact also remains to see what will happen in the next election. It is a fact that you don't know the conservative trend that started with the centrist Bill will continue. I think I might tend to agree that as they get older they get more socially conservative, but also consider that as the population gets older, they are going to want social programs that benefit them...and that iwll come from Dems, not Repubs as we saw with the failed drug plan.
I hate barb...Jon Stewart makes me laugh, which is more than I can say for Hillary or Obama. I didn't use the word retard in my post though. Don't know where you came up with that. I did the Cntrl+F thing and it didn't turn up, anywhere. But anyway, I don't look to Jon for political leadership, just cheap laughs-much like Brit Hume, though for completely different reasons.

Well once again because I always like being able to tell those who complain - I use the posting style for my own indulgence not to win popularity contests or attempting to gain readership. The Administration of this forum even made it easier to add all the things I like and I take advantage every chance I get. I've been accused of wanting attention but I get plenty of that anyway and can barely handle the load. You know what a load is, don't you? As far as responding? I save you time, enjoy it.

If you don't think Hillary Clinton is in the leadership of the party then you aren't paying attention. She doesn't need a label or title other than Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. Even the First Husband thing is dripping off the lips of the media. She has her own tv series and the media will give her so much free attention that you will think she is unbeatable. The media is busy now with Frist and Delay and since they have Frist and Delay they are doing everything they can to spread it to President Bush and Denny Hastert and that poor guy (oh gosh his daughter is a lobbyist) that took over for Delay, temporarily. The media is one fat Democrat (86%) and FNC hardly makes a dent (more bias).

Our difference? You identify as a Democrat and I only identify the Democrat or Republican Partys as a pitiful way to run a country. It's one big campaign from sun up to sun down. It's money. It's scandal. It's feed the media and the media tell us what to think by not telling us the whole story. It's Nancy Pelosi with not even a clue how respect can be used even in disagreement. Karl Rove undercover. Howard Dean (my sides are splitting). We get leftovers as they all sweep on buy not doing what is right or even the job they should. Politicians and Media - Here's what the MRC reports today and like em or not, they cite reality here:

QUOTE From the MRC: Nearly three times as many of those polled in a new Gallup survey said they believe the media are "too liberal" than "too conservative." Gallup's Tuesday press release for the poll, which is earning publicity for how it found that "trust and confidence in the news media is up" from last year, reported: "When asked about the news media's political slant, Americans are much more likely to say they are too liberal (46%) than they are to say they are about right (37%) or too conservative (16%). Those views are consistent with what Gallup has measured since 2001. The percentage of Americans saying the news media are too liberal has ranged between 45% and 48%, and has always been the plurality response. There has been a slight increase in the public's sentiment that the media are too conservative, from 11% in 2001 to 16% today." END QUOTE

As far as Barb, John, Hillary, George, Bill, Tom or any of them; I hate no one. Just knowing I thrive despite Republicans and Democrats is a tiny victory here on the 2 X 2 space I stand on. I'll be satisfied with that and knowing I'm not one of them. :duel

 

[ShamMol]

Well once again because I always like being able to tell those who complain - I use the posting style for my own indulgence not to win popularity contests or attempting to gain readership. The Administration of this forum even made it easier to add all the things I like and I take advantage every chance I get. I've been accused of wanting attention but I get plenty of that anyway and can barely handle the load. You know what a load is, don't you? As far as responding? I save you time, enjoy it.

See, I like responding to you-you just make it difficult for me...which really is a lesson in life if you think about it.

If you don't think Hillary Clinton is in the leadership of the party then you aren't paying attention. She doesn't need a label or title other than Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. Even the First Husband thing is dripping off the lips of the media. She has her own tv series and the media will give her so much free attention that you will think she is unbeatable. The media is busy now with Frist and Delay and since they have Frist and Delay they are doing everything they can to spread it to President Bush and Denny Hastert and that poor guy (oh gosh his daughter is a lobbyist) that took over for Delay, temporarily. The media is one fat Democrat (86%) and FNC hardly makes a dent (more bias).

The media label themselves 77% liberal, 30% conseervative by my book's standard...but hey, my book must be wrong since it is a textbook. But the point that the textbook makes is that the newspaper rooms are controlled by editors who were mostly conservative (more than 70%) and the news rooms of TV was controlled by a majority of liberals (barely more than 50%). Basically, it is not as stark as you think.

When Clinton was going through his scandals, the media was all over him too-face it the media just loves a good scandal no matter who it comes from because it gives them news to use for a very long time.

Our difference? You identify as a Democrat and I only identify the Democrat or Republican Partys as a pitiful way to run a country. It's one big campaign from sun up to sun down. It's money. It's scandal. It's feed the media and the media tell us what to think by not telling us the whole story. It's Nancy Pelosi with not even a clue how respect can be used even in disagreement. Karl Rove undercover. Howard Dean (my sides are splitting). We get leftovers as they all sweep on buy not doing what is right or even the job they should. Politicians and Media - Here's what the MRC reports today and like em or not, they cite reality here:

QUOTE From the MRC: Nearly three times as many of those polled in a new Gallup survey said they believe the media are "too liberal" than "too conservative." Gallup's Tuesday press release for the poll, which is earning publicity for how it found that "trust and confidence in the news media is up" from last year, reported: "When asked about the news media's political slant, Americans are much more likely to say they are too liberal (46%) than they are to say they are about right (37%) or too conservative (16%). Those views are consistent with what Gallup has measured since 2001. The percentage of Americans saying the news media are too liberal has ranged between 45% and 48%, and has always been the plurality response. There has been a slight increase in the public's sentiment that the media are too conservative, from 11% in 2001 to 16% today." END QUOTE

It is a nice quote-except to say this-if you say something enough it will become true in the minds of the voters. Even if what you say and what the American people say is true, it could change drastically, and they would likely say the exact same thing because that is what they have been taught. For example-the court is packed with liberals. No. The courts were appointed 75% by repubs which means that the vast majority of those are at the very least moderate or conservative, not liberal. Basically if you say it enough and it still isn't true, people will still regard it as truth.

As far as Barb, John, Hillary, George, Bill, Tom or any of them; I hate no one. Just knowing I thrive despite Republicans and Democrats is a tiny victory here on the 2 X 2 space I stand on. I'll be satisfied with that and knowing I'm not one of them.

You thrive on univolvement...I thrive on involvement to change the minds of the extremes that we have here on campus. That simple.

 

[JOHNYJ]

The 22 liberal democrats who voted against JUstice Roberts.Were all of the leftwing of the democratic party and several were Presidential want to be's. They are all pro-abortion and in voting against Roberts they were obeying their pro-abortion supporters.
The democratic party is run by people of death.

 

[Navy Pride]

The 22 liberal democrats who voted against JUstice Roberts.Were all of the leftwing of the democratic party and several were Presidential want to be's. They are all pro-abortion and in voting against Roberts they were obeying their pro-abortion supporters.
The democratic party is run by people of death.

3500 babies murdered in the womb every day.......Hopefully with Gods help and another conservative on the SCOTUS we can put a stop to this mass murdering..........

 

[Caine]

The 22 liberal democrats who voted against JUstice Roberts.Were all of the leftwing of the democratic party and several were Presidential want to be's. They are all pro-abortion and in voting against Roberts they were obeying their pro-abortion supporters.
The democratic party is run by people of death.

People of death?
Like President Bush for example? I guess he should be a Democrat.
During his tenure as Governor, Bush presided over a record-setting 152 executions. Looks like someone loves death.

All this whining over Abortion. Since I am a Male, and the Majority of the people in our Government are MALES, I don't think that we males even have the right to speak on Abortion rights in the first place, it should be a WOMAN'S decision.

But, just to throw it out there anyways, Abortion is a necessary evil in my opinion. Not necessary for the 22 year old College Chick who forgot to take her birth control pill. But for the 28 year old mother of two who is pregnant and cannot go through with the pregnancy due to medical complications.
I even agree with it in the case of rape, but only true rape not this, I wanted it then, now I don't and im claiming rape bullshit which seems to happen more and more these days.

 

[kal-el]

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

Great news for Conservatives? Only time will tell I guess. But, correct me if I am wrong, but he didn't give his direct opinion on the issues,he was beating around the bush when he was grilled. O yea, I believe he's replacing the ultra-conservative Rhenquist? So, if he's not too conservative, that should be a step in the right direction.

 

[gordontravels]

See, I like responding to you-you just make it difficult for me...which really is a lesson in life if you think about it.
The media label themselves 77% liberal, 30% conseervative by my book's standard...but hey, my book must be wrong since it is a textbook. But the point that the textbook makes is that the newspaper rooms are controlled by editors who were mostly conservative (more than 70%) and the news rooms of TV was controlled by a majority of liberals (barely more than 50%). Basically, it is not as stark as you think.

When Clinton was going through his scandals, the media was all over him too-face it the media just loves a good scandal no matter who it comes from because it gives them news to use for a very long time.
It is a nice quote-except to say this-if you say something enough it will become true in the minds of the voters. Even if what you say and what the American people say is true, it could change drastically, and they would likely say the exact same thing because that is what they have been taught. For example-the court is packed with liberals. No. The courts were appointed 75% by repubs which means that the vast majority of those are at the very least moderate or conservative, not liberal. Basically if you say it enough and it still isn't true, people will still regard it as truth.
You thrive on univolvement...I thrive on involvement to change the minds of the extremes that we have here on campus. That simple.

That you like to read me is a lesson you've learned or at the least you have learned you are interested enough in what I write to read it. As for me making it difficult, that is perception and reaction on your part and few here complain but those who generally disagree with what I do write look for methods of putting me down; I like that by the way. I don't accuse you of that because you are sort of intelligent.

Before the 2000 election the New York Post checked public records of the reporters, both print and broadcast, that covered the White House. 86% Democrat. This in itself doesn't prove bias because I know Democrats that can't stand Hillary or her husband. It does indicate that the two party system is alive and well in our media with whatever that system decides to feed us. Agreement? Sure. The media loves a scandal but the reporting on President Clinton didn't include the level of hate relagated to President Bush. Please, before you disagree, go to archives of publications like the NYT's and see. Conservatives were much more reserved in the mainstream media as well. Here? Well, we all could do better.

Two final observations. Sandra Day O'Conner was appointed by President Reagan and has definitely been moderate in most of her decisions but to catagorize her as leaning conservative should send you back to which side she has voted with. And, in light of getting God out of the classroom and the 9th Circuit in California? Liberalism is alive and well in the courts.

The other comment? I thrive on uninvolvement? Again, you put words in my post that I never said. Have you been President of your Library and grown it for children's needs with fund raising and hours upon hours of meetings and participation? Have you given food and clothing personally, not through some organization, to families you have sought out on your own who need? Have you served your town, city or county in efforts to jail the drug element, putting your life on the line and as local drug enforcement told me, my name on a hit list? Have you served in combat; not that you have to in order to have strong opinions but, since I volunteered and wasn't drafted, isn't that considered involvement? I have voted in every election since I've been registered to do so whether national or local which is the height of involvement, isn't it? I have employed the employable in many businesses.

I'm not looking for your list here but when I said I thrive despite the Republicans and Democrats I meant just that. I have never been out of work for more than a week in my life and retired at 41 because of my own hard work and decisions. I never shirk from helping others but am totally skeptical of all, ALL, politicians who concentrate more on image and elections than doing the work we hire them to do. I thrive because I don't depend on others but allow some to depend on me. Guess you see it different. But then could it be that you want to belong to a party and I don't? Maybe, maybe not.

I do find it disappointing that you seek to define others when you should just stick to being yourself and the debate. You don't do too well with definitions of what others write if your "uninvolved" comment about me is really what you believe. :duel

 

[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

This is odd, I started this thread yesterday, now it reads that Navy had, not that it matters, but very strange indeed.

 

[gordontravels]

This is odd, I started this thread yesterday, now it reads that Navy had, not that it matters, but very strange indeed.

Yes, politics can be confusing when there are only two sides don't you think? :duel

 

[Navy Pride]

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

Great news for Conservatives? Only time will tell I guess. But, correct me if I am wrong, but he didn't give his direct opinion on the issues,he was beating around the bush when he was grilled. O yea, I believe he's replacing the ultra-conservative Rhenquist? So, if he's not too conservative, that should be a step in the right direction.

I watched all the hearings in the senate for Justice Roberts....He made the Liberal democrats look like fools in their questioning....They did not lat a glove on him........

I don;t think we have to much to worry about his political beliefs though...He was a clerk for Chief Justice Renhquist and considered him his mentor....You do the math............

Now the next appointment should be really fun............I know President Bush will keep his promise and nominate a well qualified person who interprets the constitution and who is a strict constructionist............I am hoping it will be someone like Priscilla Owen or Janis Rogers Brown........I just hope the democrats try and filibuster a qualified candidate like they are so Senator Frist can envoke the constitutional option and the nominee only needs a simple 51 vote majority which is what the constitution requires........

Let the fun begin!!!!!