A FRIENDLY REMINDER TO WX7B

[WA5KRP]

Quote[/b] (wa5krp @ July 01 2005,13:51)]Quote[/b] (WX7B @ July 01 2005,13:35)]"Monkeys"? You're better than that, KRP. I would expect that comment from some of our fire breathing newbies on here, not from a class act like you. #
Dave,


You're way to generous. #I'll do this. #I'll apologize for my monkey comment right now if Kennedy and Biden conduct gentlemanly and spirited hearings and leave out the rancor. #I'm not optomistic they'll do so, but it they come through: #I am sorry I referred to them as monkeys.

And it's fair to say they will have made a monkey out of me. # Let's see what happens.



WA5KRP
Crow Pie, Texas


President Bush has named his nominee to replace Justice O'Connor. #The talking heads are saying Judge John G. Roberts is quite a jurist. #A very personable man with excellent credentials, including the Harvard Law Review. #Of course, he's not a woman - reckon that will work against him?

It will be interesting to see how his nomination is handled by Democrats on the Senate Judicial Committee. The games have begun.


WA5KRP
http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/cwm/cwm/monkeysmile.gif
Texas

[KE7DFP]

Yes, under Clinton we endorsed his nominees with respect and class befitting an American. #Ruth Judith Ginsburg, the most liberal judge ever, and #hardly a Constitutionalist, was ratified with a 97 to 3 vote. She also holds the seat of Legal Advisor to the ACLU. #I didn't even know a judge could do that while sitting on the bench. We'll see. #I think even the Dems know they have used up all their slack at this point. #Good luck finding W7XB. He has disappeared after posting his "of course Rove did it post".

[KW4MW]

Even if Dave doesn't, the other Bush bashers will show up with the same tired, stale regurgitated party lines. #When asked for proof they will point to some news source as evidence of their facts but they won't go beyond the media and weigh all the facts, just the ones that support their aganda. #

Look fellows, I didn't care for Clinton as a President but I damned sure didn't hate him. #Hell, Slick would probably be a lot of fun to go drinking and horn dogging with. #Slick did some good things in office and he did some stupid things. #Personally, my biggest problem with Slick was that he just didn't seem to (GAF) take his job seriously and he thought that the presidency was more about him then it was about the country, IMHO.

But I never hated the guy and I have never said that I did. #

But you Bush bashers, I dunno, I don't think GWB could even take a crap without you finding fault with the way he did it. #You'd probably accuse him of fouling the waterways, misusing goverment paper, wasting water by flushing more then once, not washing his hands enough (or too much), and helping to destroy the ozone.

Guys, lighten up. #Your tirades are tiring and more importantly, ineffective. #You hijack almost every thread, regardless of the original topic and begin the same frenzied attack on GWB. #

The rest of us are not impressed.

If you want to gain some ground with your arguments you are going to have to suppress the hate that spews from your fingertips.

The more you become consumed with hatred for others the more you will become consumed with hatred for yourself.

[K8YS]

MW:
I think that you will find it quite universal amongst CONSERVITIVES that we DO NOT HATE Clinton. Yes, he was very good a "horn doggin'" and I am sure that Monica and all the others found him to be a good... well... one night stand.
As a serious president, he was having more fun being a one night stand.

HOWEVER, on the opposite side of the street, the rabid liberals just flat out HATE GWB. The hatred is seeping out of every pore and leaving stains whereever they travel.

John Roberts was appointed by 99:0 -- ZERO felt he did not fit the position. It ought to be down right interesting to see just how many have decided that they were WRONG and or misguided, and will now try to block his appointment to the USSC.

Anyone want to bet that Teddy the failed creek jumper is first to "bork" Roberts??

[N6WK]

Don't you boys under estimate WX7B.
Dave is very Good at what he Posts. You all will be hard pressed to corner him on any thing.
His posts do make a whole lot more sense with a lot more backing then most of the crap I read on here every day.
73,
gordon

[WA5KRP]

Quote[/b] (N6WK @ July 20 2005,00:20)]Don't you boys under estimate WX7B. #Dave is very Good at what he Posts. #You all will be hard pressed to corner him on any thing.


My point, exactly. #I DON'T under estimate Dave. That's what made me start this thread.

I look forward to the hearings. #I contend the Dems will be very antagonistic to Roberts throughout the approval process. #Attempts to thwart his approval by the Senate Committee will never work.



WA5KRP
Texas

[k9kxq]

I don't know about the term "rabid liberals" I've had my rabies shots long ago thank you, how about you conservatives, every breath it's liberals, or socialist liberals, hey I like to be refered to as a Democrat thats my party of choice.

Roberts ain't in there yet, he has a lot of questions to answer so lets see if he gets a good score from the Dems.

Now for your hate theme, I don't hate anyone, especially President Bush, I just disagree with his politics, and I don't understand your consevative thinking, you say less government in our lives, well it's just the opposite we have more government,the Bush administration is far from conservative (spend,spend ect) if Bush fed you a bowl of dookey you would eat it and say it was good without asking "whats this".

And another thing to point out about your man Rover, this ain't the first time he's barked and let the cat out of the bag, and it ain't the first time he's been fired either...

kxq

[N0PU]

Here's the poop on da Judge as I found it:
Quote[/b] ]
John Roberts
Age: 50
Graduated from: Harvard Law School.
He clerked for: Judge Henry Friendly, Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
He used to be: associate counsel to the president for Ronald Reagan, deputy solicitor general for George H.W. Bush, partner at Hogan & Hartson.
He's now: a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (appointed 2003).

His confirmation battle: Roberts has been floated as a nominee who could win widespread support in the Senate. Not so likely. He hasn't been on the bench long enough for his judicial opinions to provide much ammunition for liberal opposition groups. But his record as a lawyer for the Reagan and first Bush administrations and in private practice is down-the-line conservative on key contested fronts, including abortion, separation of church and state, and environmental protection.

Civil Rights and Liberties
For a unanimous panel, denied the weak civil rights claims of a 12-year-old girl who was arrested and handcuffed in a Washington, D.C., Metro station for eating a French fry. Roberts noted that "no one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation" and that the Metro authority had changed the policy that led to her arrest. (Hedgepeth v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 2004).

In private practice, wrote a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that Congress had failed to justify a Department of Transportation affirmative action program. (Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Mineta, 2001).

For Reagan, opposed a congressional effort—in the wake of the 1980 Supreme Court decision Mobile v. Bolden—to make it easier for minorities to successfully argue that their votes had been diluted under the Voting Rights Act.

Separation of Church and State
For Bush I, co-authored a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that public high-school graduation programs could include religious ceremonies. The Supreme Court disagreed by a vote of 5-4. (Lee v. Weisman, 1992)

Environmental Protection and Property Rights
Voted for rehearing in a case about whether a developer had to take down a fence so that the arroyo toad could move freely through its habitat. Roberts argued that the panel was wrong to rule against the developer because the regulations on behalf of the toad, promulgated under the Endangered Species Act, overstepped the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce. At the end of his opinion, Roberts suggested that rehearing would allow the court to "consider alternative grounds" for protecting the toad that are "more consistent with Supreme Court precedent." (Rancho Viejo v. Nortion, 2003)

For Bush I, argued that environmental groups concerned about mining on public lands had not proved enough about the impact of the government's actions to give them standing to sue. The Supreme Court adopted this argument. (Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 1990)

Criminal Law
Joined a unanimous opinion ruling that a police officer who searched the trunk of a car without saying that he was looking for evidence of a crime (the standard for constitutionality) still conducted the search legally, because there was a reasonable basis to think contraband was in the trunk, regardless of whether the officer was thinking in those terms. (U.S. v. Brown, 2004)

Habeas Corpus
Joined a unanimous opinion denying the claim of a prisoner who argued that by tightening parole rules in the middle of his sentence, the government subjected him to an unconstitutional after-the-fact punishment. The panel reversed its decision after a Supreme Court ruling directly contradicted it. (Fletcher v. District of Columbia, 2004)

Abortion
For Bush I, successfully helped argue that doctors and clinics receiving federal funds may not talk to patients about abortion. (Rust v. Sullivan, 1991)

Judicial Philosophy
Concurring in a decision allowing President Bush to halt suits by Americans against Iraq as the country rebuilds, Roberts called for deference to the executive and for a literal reading of the relevant statute. (Acree v. Republic of Iraq, 2004)

In an article written as a law student, argued that the phrase "just compensation" in the Fifth Amendment, which limits the government in the taking of private property, should be "informed by changing norms of justice." This sounds like a nod to liberal constitutional theory, but Roberts' alternative interpretation was more protective of property interests than Supreme Court law at the time.


I looked this up on three diff sites, they all (both conservative and liberal) say about the same thing... So these are the facts... Now lets see what happens...

( Side Note: Arresting a 12 year old for eating a french fry? What are you folks on the east coast thinking? I'd like to know more about that story! Oh, never mind... that was Washington, DC... 'nuff said! )

[wd0ct]

Quote[/b] (KW4MW @ July 19 2005,21:18)]Even if Dave doesn't, the other Bush bashers will show up with the same tired, stale regurgitated party lines. #When asked for proof they will point to some news source as evidence of their facts but they won't go beyond the media and weigh all the facts, just the ones that support their aganda. #

Look fellows, I didn't care for Clinton as a President but I damned sure didn't hate him. #Hell, Slick would probably be a lot of fun to go drinking and horn dogging with. #Slick did some good things in office and he did some stupid things. #Personally, my biggest problem with Slick was that he just didn't seem to (GAF) take his job seriously and he thought that the presidency was more about him then it was about the country, IMHO.

But I never hated the guy and I have never said that I did. #

But you Bush bashers, I dunno, I don't think GWB could even take a crap without you finding fault with the way he did it. #You'd probably accuse him of fouling the waterways, misusing goverment paper, wasting water by flushing more then once, not washing his hands enough (or too much), and helping to destroy the ozone.

Guys, lighten up. #Your tirades are tiring and more importantly, ineffective. #You hijack almost every thread, regardless of the original topic and begin the same frenzied attack on GWB. #

The rest of us are not impressed.

If you want to gain some ground with your arguments you are going to have to suppress the hate that spews from your fingertips.

The more you become consumed with hatred for others the more you will become consumed with hatred for yourself.
Lighten up yourself. We are getting real tired of you and others saying we hate dubya.

I don't hate the guy. I do think he is a liar and the worst president in our history.

I will continue to be critical of him and his policies as I see fit.

Maybe the real problem is that you and other repubs on here just hate liberals. Is that it?

[kf6rdn]

Quote[/b] (wa5krp @ July 19 2005,19:06)]Of course, he's not a woman - reckon that will work against him?
Only when it comes to dating...
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[W0UZR]

Quote[/b] (wd0ct @ July 20 2005,01:23)]Maybe the real problem is that you and other repubs on here just hate liberals. Is that it?
I don't Hate Democrats or liberals. What I hate is that what they are for is what my morals and values and ethics are against.

I'm not for same sex marriages. You will find the most support for that in the dem. area. I'm defiantly not for abortion, you will find support for that in the dem's. and the list goes on and on.

What I haven't told anyone yet was that I was a democrat in the old days when the party was normal. And their beliefs, ethics, morals, matched our families. And the party Did honestly went to bat for the working people. And now, I don't even see much of that.

So I reluctantly switched to republican because I refuse to support people that support bad values. Right is right and wrong is wrong. The quality of the nation depends on how many are for real good values.

Well, enough of that. And about John Roberts, from what I heard, he seems to be a fine upstanding man, supporting my beliefs and standards. And I hope he gets the nomination. He was a great adviser for Reagan.

Now, what I would like to see a change in is, as an example:
We vote in all our local judges, right? At least in this state we do. I don't know about all states. But,,,
If the highest court in the land is going to be making decisions for all of us, and be determining the course of the land, then if I was in control, I would make it a vote of the people. The polls would be open just like in an election for the president, and every American would be casting their vote for who They want for judge. Or I should say, who WE want for judge.
I think that it's wrong that the deciding of who the judge is going to be is out of the hands of the people. I say that we all should be able to go and vote in those judges when it comes to such a very important high position as that.

[w5klb]

Danny, KRP

What I want to see is FAIRNESS in the Senate hearing especially from Senator Charles Schumer D-NY. Schmumer has a HUGE list of questions (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163039,00.html) for Mr. Roberts. Schumer claims that he has asked these questions of other Supream Court nominees and that John Roberts MUST answer everyone of them. Isn't it rather odd that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg didn't have to answer all of them. Fair? I don't think so. This is "business as usual" from the party of donkeys.

The game's afoot.

[W0LC]

Quote[/b] (kf6rdn @ July 20 2005,00:34)]Quote[/b] (wa5krp @ July 19 2005,19:06)]Of course, he's not a woman - reckon that will work against him?
Only when it comes to dating...
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
And that depends on which State these days. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[AK7V]

I think it's funny that the left is already getting upset, warning us Americans that we're going to get a <shudder> conservative judge! The horrors!

It's like they forget that we Americans elected a conservative president. I'd wager that a majority also want a conservative judge. He'll be confirmed.

[w3sy]

Here's what cracks me up -- Democrats would think nothing of nominating the most off-the-charts soft on crime, soft on our enemies, ultra-left justice available... But when the Republicans are in power, they insist on someone left of center. Gimmeabreak.

And last time I checked, NO seat on the Supreme Court has been officially designated as JUST for women or JUST for a certain demographic. HAW!

[WA5KRP]

Quote[/b] (w5klb @ July 20 2005,06:42)]What I want to see is FAIRNESS in the Senate hearing especially from Senator Charles Schumer D-NY.
Don't we all! #As I see it, this will be a time of revelation as much for the committee members as it will be for Judge Roberts. #How these guys conduct themselves while screening the nominee will be carefully watched by the media and the public. #

There is a real possibility that if Roberts gets Borked there will be a nasty backlash. #But I don't think the Democrats are going to pull that crap. #They still remember the messy nature of the Bork debacle in 1987 and the bad taste it left in in everybodys mouth. #Not surprisingly, every Supreme Court nominee has been approved since that blood letting. #

Of course, not everybody has had smooth sailing. #The Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings turned into a zoo. #But that was because of Anita Hill who couldn't prove any of her outrageous allegations and subsequently disappeared in a cloud of opprobrium somewhere in Oklahoma.

As a matter of curiosity, would any of us want to go through a confirmation hearing? #Even sitting federal judges nominated to the Supreme Court can be publicly brutalized by Judiciary Committee members, some of whom have enormous sleaze factors in their personal lives. #I view this as the highest form of hypocrisy and I don't know these people can look at themselves in a mirror. #I wouldn't want to put myself in front of these guys and have my life opened up like a book. #There's too many mispellings.

Personally, I'm not comfortable with Roberts. #We really don't know his philosophy about the constitution, government, and civil rights. #He could easily wind up being another David Souder, who sounded judicially conservative during confirmation hearings and turned out to be just the opposite on the Big Bench. # And Roberts is only 50 years old. #He could be on the Court for thirty years or more.

I want an older guy that's more predictable.



WA5KRP
Texas

[KE7DFP]

Leahy just announced he is going up to his farm to sit under his apple tree and read everything he can find on Roberts. He says he wants to make a very informed decision. Nice tactic, we can not have hearings until Leahy comes back dowen from under his apple tree. Since O'Connor will not quit being a judge, until a new is confirmed, I think we will see this waiting game in lieu of filibuster.

[K8YS]

if it comes down to a filibuster, I hope the dems remember the sage advise...

"What goes around, comes around".

[KW4MW]

N6WK Posted: July 19 2005,22:20
Quote[/b] ]Don't you boys under estimate WX7B. #
Dave is very Good at what he Posts. #You all will be hard pressed to corner him on any thing.
His posts do make a whole lot more sense with a lot more backing then most of the crap I read on here every day.Well Gordon, I'll be the first to admit that Dave brings some heat to these discussions. #But as to your claim that that he has "a lot more backing then most of the crap I read on here" is unsubstantiated as far as I am concerned. #I have asked Dave on three separate occasions now to reveal the source of his information, others on here have done the same, but Dave has yet to comply with our requests. #The day that he is willing to reveal the source of his "facts" will be the day that I will give creditability to his comments.

k9kxq Posted: July 19 2005,22:55
Quote[/b] ]Now for your hate theme, I don't hate anyone, especially President Bush,Agreed you haven't said that you hate GWB but there are a few members on here who have actually said that, my comments were directed toward them.

# BTW "especially President Bush" #? ? ?
#
wd0ct Posted: July 20 2005,00:23Quote[/b] ]Lighten up yourself. We are getting real tired of you and others saying we hate dubya.I repeat, It has been specifically stated several times by a few members of this forum. #

As far as lightening up, Sure, I can do that - in fact I am usually chuckling at most of the political stuff that gets posted on this forum. #Quite frankly, it's fun to reply to the inane and emotional posts on here and I can predict almost to the precise wording what their reply is going to be. #Hey, it's fun and I'm having a ball jerking your chains.

kb0uzr Posted: July 20 2005,01:55
Quote[/b] ]What I haven't told anyone yet was that I was a democrat in the old days when the party was normal. And their beliefs, ethics, morals, matched our families. #And the party Did honestly went to bat for the working people. #And now, I don't even see much of that.

# #So I reluctantly switched to republican because I refuse to support people that support bad values. #Right is right and wrong is wrong. The quality of the nation depends on how many are for real good values.
Yep, me too and I'm not that much happier with the GOP. # I have stated on this forum a time or two and I'll repeat it here. #Whenever the Democrats decide to nominate a candidate for any office who eschews the doctrine of the Socialist Democrats will get serious consideration for my vote. #Unfortunately, a person of those qualifications has as much chance of being a nominee of the Democratic party as a snowballs chance in Hell.


As far as Judge Robert's nomination goes, all I ask is that they have the decency to give him a speedy and fair hearing based specifically upon his qualifications for judgeship. #.

[K0RGR]

I haven't seen anything about Roberts yet that looks like it disqualifies him. No charges of sexually assaulting his law clerks, no speeches about undoing all the terrible harm that the Supreme court has done over the last 50 years, nothing like that. There are rumors that he is anti-abortion, but if the Democrats try to stop him on that count, they're simply nuts. I think the best thing that could happen to the Democrats would be to have Roe-v.-Wade overturned in a Republican Supreme Court. It would take the GOP's most potent weapon out of their hands and give the Democrats a brand new shiny tool to bludgeon them with. I intend to get involved in my party's local caucuses next year, and I intend to make it clear that I think our position on abortion must change. We can't ignore 70% of the voters, who think it should be outlawed or restricted.

But, of course, being a Democrat, I suppose I'm expected to say hateful things about him. Gee, he doesn't look like an undertaker. For a minute there, I thought he was a Democrat.

[W8EFA]

Quote[/b] ]I intend to make it clear that I think our position on abortion must change. We can't ignore 70% of the voters, who think it should be outlawed or restricted.


I think you may have your percentages backward. #Most Americans like the current law in effect.
Quote[/b] ]
More than thirty years ago, the Supreme Court's decision in Roe versus Wade established a constitutional right for women to obtain legal abortions in this country. In general, do you think the Court's decision was a good thing or a bad thing?"
## #
# # # # # # # # Good Thing # #Bad Thing # #Both # #Unsure # #
# # # # # # # # # # #% # # # # # # # # # % # # # # # % # # # # #%
#ALL # # # # # # # 59 # # # # # # # # # 32 # # # # # 4 # # # # # 5
#Republicans # #47 # # # # # # # # # 47 # # # # ##1 # # # # # 5
#Democrats # # #68 # # # # # # # # # 24 # # # # ##5 # # # # # 3
#Independents #61 # # # # # # # # # 27 # # # # ##4 # # # # # 8
#

Polling Report CBS Poll (http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm)

[W5MJL]

If you cannot put your polling information in perfectly lined up columns then please hesitate from posting. I consider it to be worse than spelling errors. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[N0PU]

Quote[/b] (ka5fap @ July 20 2005,21:00)]If you cannot put your polling information in perfectly lined up columns then please hesitate from posting. I consider it to be worse than spelling errors. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
He did hesitate... about 40 usec ...
then he posted it anyway...
Because it is relevant!

or did you mean "refrain from posting" ?

[W5MJL]

Yes I meant refrain. This code thing has my mind screwed up. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[KW4MW]

In defense of EFA's data formatting, the final text justification when posted is not quite the same as seen in the preview window. #

As far as his data is concerned, I couldn't go to the link that he provided. #I did notice that it is a CBS poll and so a red flag immediately went up at this QTH. #

After doing some Googling, I noticed that the numbers change depending upon the identity of the polling authority.

Personally, I abhor abortion, especially when it is used as a means of birth control. #But that is my opinion but it is not my place to tell other people how to behave or think. #neither is it, for that matter, the business of the government of the USA.

[W5MJL]

Quote[/b] (KW4MW @ July 20 2005,21:23)]In defense of EFA's data formatting, the final text justification when posted is not quite the same as seen in the preview window. #
I'm just busting his chops.

[wd0ct]

mw says: "wd0ct Posted: July 20 2005,00:23Quote
Lighten up yourself. We are getting real tired of you and others saying we hate dubya.
I repeat, It has been specifically stated several times by a few members of this forum.

As far as lightening up, Sure, I can do that - in fact I am usually chuckling at most of the political stuff that gets posted on this forum. Quite frankly, it's fun to reply to the inane and emotional posts on here and I can predict almost to the precise wording what their reply is going to be. Hey, it's fun and I'm having a ball jerking your chains."

In light of your above staements I'm sure you won't mind me saying that you are fool and a first rate Bush apologist.

hee hee

Hey, just having a bit of fun at your expense.

[N0PU]

Quote[/b] ]
CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. June 24-26, 2005. N=1,009 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"If one of the U.S. Supreme Court justices retired, would you want the new Supreme Court justice to be someone who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade -- the decision that legalized abortion -- or vote to uphold it?"

Vote To Vote To
Overturn Uphold Unsure
29% 65% 6%

6/24-26/05

Quote[/b] ]Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. June 8-12, 2005. N=1,464 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"In 1973 the Roe versus Wade decision established a woman's constitutional right to an abortion, at least in the first three months of pregnancy. Would you like to see the Supreme Court completely overturn its Roe versus Wade decision, or not?"
Yes No Unsure
% % %
6/8-12/05 30 63 7
1/03 31 62 7


Quote[/b] ] NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff ®. May 12-16, 2005. N=1,005 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.

"Which of the following best represents your views about abortion? The choice on abortion should be left up to the woman and her doctor. Abortion should be legal only in cases in which pregnancy results from rape or incest or when the life of the woman is at risk. OR, Abortion should be illegal in all circumstances."

Woman Rape,Incest,
and Doctor Life ofWoman Always Illegal Unsure
% % % %
5/12-16/05 55 29 14 2
11/03 53 29 15 3
1/03 59 29 9 3
1/97 60 26 11 3
8/96 56 30 12 2
3/96 56 31 10 3


That's 3, want some more? There is plenty out there...
Basically, the originally speaker, shooting from the hip, was wrong... He had it backwards... 60%, or thereabouts, want things the way they are...
(boy, I hope these columns come out ok... )
edit:(bummer, they didnt... oh well deal with it)

[K8YS]

yea, for some, it is just too bad that Roe v Wade did not happen sooner....

[N0PU]

Quote[/b] (K8YS @ July 20 2005,21:44)]yea, for some, it is just too bad that Roe v Wade did not happen sooner....
LOL ...

[W8EFA]

Quote[/b] (ka5fap @ July 20 2005,19:00)]If you cannot put your polling information in perfectly lined up columns then please hesitate from posting. #I consider it to be worse than spelling errors. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
FAP - Please copy my post and edit and line them up for me - and a very good luck to you in your efforts http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

In regards to the comment about CBS the link has about 20 different sources including your favorite FOX Poll.

[KW4MW]

wd0ctQuote[/b] ]In light of your above staements I'm sure you won't mind me saying that you are fool and a first rate Bush apologistFool? That I might be from time to time (aren't we all?) but an apologist for GWB? #Never.

Nice try at baiting though. #Hee Hee

[W5MJL]

I cannot understand how you can debate people who cannot get their poll columns to line up properly. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[WA5KRP]

OK. Where did you guys put WX7B?



WA5KRP
Texas

[N6WK]

Quote[/b] (wa5krp @ July 21 2005,04:51)]OK. Where did you guys put WX7B?



WA5KRP
Texas
Yea,
That is a GOOD question. Where is Dave? Maybe he is at the lake. I know he loves to go there. I'm sure he'll check in here sooner or later.

Gordon

[N0PU]

Quote[/b] (K6UEY @ July 20 2005,22:30)]NØPU,
I have always found you to be an honest person with If I may say so, Good Honest Republican Values and morals.

Is it possible that the fact that Democrats out number Republicans by possibly 3 to 1, might have any bearing on the outcome of the polls you are quoting?
As to the first, I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat, nor do I cling to the churchfied morals I assume you refer to, nor am I a particularly religious individual in the common sense of the word, however, I do try to be an honest citizen.

As to the second: 3 to 1? Can you show me that statistic somewhere meaningful (ie: not from some Republican, right wing source). I find that division very hard to believe... 3 to 1 indicates 75% Democrats to 25% Republicans...

I would tend to believe, and this is just a guess, that the country is way more evenly split than that... I would guess at the most it would be 45-55 one way or the other...

Educate me....

[K8YS]

Quote[/b] (wa5krp @ July 20 2005,22:51)]OK. Where did you guys put WX7B?



WA5KRP
Texas
has anyone gotten a phone call...

"You have a collect call from the county jail, dial "1" to accept or hangup"? ? ? ?

[w5klb]

Quote[/b] (N0PU @ July 20 2005,21:11)]... 3 to 1? Can you show me that statistic somewhere meaningful (ie: not from some Republican, right wing source). I find that division very hard to believe... #3 to 1 indicates 75% Democrats to 25% Republicans...
Orv, UEY,

I am also questioning those numbers, I think Harry has got a point, and deserves an answer OM.

[w5klb]

Maybe Dave WX7B went on a business trip. He's been known to do that.

[N0PU]

Quote[/b] (K6UEY @ July 21 2005,04:30)]W5KLB/NØPU,
Guys I don't have the exact number,the 3:1 is just my guess,but I know from the past there are many more Democrats then there are Republicans.

Tnx for the discussion, it is getting harder and harder to find intelligent people on this Forum....73, ORV
With that in mind the discussion is over...

I submit that the division is far closer to my estimate, therefore my stats stand as presented until someone shows me otherwise with facts and not some number drawn outta... the air. ( Cleaned THAT one up didn't I?)

I suggest that in a random sample poll, properly conducted, you will get a fairly balanced political spectrum. Remember these polls are taken across the country, not in any one conclave of like minded righties or lefties... and the selection on who is polled is very carefully randomized... The chances of there being a skew is listed on the poll and when you have a 60% to 30% difference of opinion on a 3% chance of error, the error becomes so insignificant as to not exist.

Stats 101 will tell ya that.

[W8EFA]

Quote[/b] ] don't feel it is my job to bend the minds of anyone. I gladly share what knowledge I have gathered with those who are interested,but that's where my responsibility ends.


The problem is UEY some of your "knowledge" is flat out wrong - you post it as fact - then refuse to back it up!

Your last Gem was Joe Wilson admitted he filed a false report! Of course you refused to back it up as usual - because you can't! Your credibility is zero when you can't substantiate your points with facts.

This is another one where you are wrong - As Harry noted it is probably more like 55-45 at the most.

[KE7DFP]

Who cares what any particular group demands from an appointed judge. If you want so and so becaus they will vote rubber stamp a certain way-- run for office, get yourself elected, then pick your favorite. No judge should be chosen because of how he is gauranteed to vote. The whole purpose of the courts is to follow and interpret the law without party bias. A judge should be chosen for scholarly knowledge, character, and impartiality.

[W0UZR]

Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ July 21 2005,06:19)]Quote[/b] ] don't feel it is my job to bend the minds of anyone. I gladly share what knowledge I have gathered with those who are interested,but that's where my responsibility ends.


The problem is UEY some of your "knowledge" is flat out wrong - you post it as fact - then refuse to back it up!

Your last Gem was Joe Wilson admitted he filed a false report! #Of course you refused to back it up as usual - because you can't! #Your credibility is zero when you can't substantiate your points with facts.

This is another one where you are wrong - As Harry noted it is probably more like 55-45 at the most.
THAT's why I don't get into discussing politics that much.

Because a guy hears something on the news, or some program like the Sunday morning thing with George Stephenopoulos or something, and think you should have information right when discussing it. So if I want to back it up,, But where you heard it,,,Can't remember. Or where you read it,,,Can't remember.

So a guy can't remember where he read something or heard something on one of the programs on the news,,
Then I have a question...

How are they going to back it up?

A guy takes what he heard, or read as fairly accurate, or you wouldn't think that it would be broadcasted to millions of people, or written for millions to read, but they defiantly can be wrong. As everyone knows.
So is what a person reads or sees on the news, or one of those political programs, or on the web even accurate? Not always.

And if I say something or another, I'm going by what I read, heard, and how am I going to back it up unless I happen to remember just where I got the information from that I'm discussing and can do a Google search and look it up.
OR, What I can do if I think someone is wrong, instead of telling a guy he's all wet, then what I can do is Google it up and see if I can find some info on it and come up with my own proof to bring to the plate. And what I look up, wether it's accurate or not, how am I going to know. It's not like I haven't been wrong before, but at least I Tried....

[N0PU]

Quote[/b] (KE7DFP @ July 21 2005,11:21)]Who cares what any particular group demands from an appointed judge. If you want so and so becaus they will vote rubber stamp a certain way-- run for office, get yourself elected, then pick your favorite. No judge should be chosen because of how he is gauranteed to vote. The whole purpose of the courts is to follow and interpret the law without party bias. A judge should be chosen for scholarly knowledge, character, and impartiality.
DFP:

We finally agree on something...

Only problem is they can't be nominated unless they are 'slanted' one way or the other... The Prez, whatever Prez, won't pick 'em unless the Judge 'leans' the Prez's way... And the Congress won't approve 'em unless they 'lean' their way...

Pretty sick system huh?
Think it might need reform?

If you find a Judge, who is impartial in his thinking, and only judges the merits of the case without interjecting his own personal beliefs, He'll never make it to the Supreme Court... Can't be done!

[K8YS]

Dave 7B, I thought that I'd pull this to the surface, after all, you have been on vacation far too long.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[N6WK]

Quote[/b] (K8YS @ Aug. 02 2005,03:42)]Dave 7P, I thought that I'd pull this to the surface, after all, you have been on vacation far too long.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Who is 7P ?? A guy name Dave I guess.

[K8YS]

Quote[/b] (N6WK @ Aug. 01 2005,22:08)]Quote[/b] (K8YS @ Aug. 02 2005,03:42)]Dave 7P, I thought that I'd pull this to the surface, after all, you have been on vacation far too long.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Who is 7P ?? A guy name Dave I guess.
oops, the brain said B, but the fingers said P

oh , never mind http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[KC2KFC]

Quote[/b] (N0PU @ July 26 2005,20:59)]Only problem is they can't be nominated unless they are 'slanted' one way or the other... The Prez, whatever Prez, won't pick 'em unless the Judge 'leans' the Prez's way... And the Congress won't approve 'em unless they 'lean' their way...

Pretty sick system huh?
Think it might need reform?

If you find a Judge, who is impartial in his thinking, and only judges the merits of the case without interjecting his own personal beliefs, He'll never make it to the Supreme Court... Can't be done!
What would be a better system?

[N0PU]

Quote[/b] (KC2KFC @ Aug. 02 2005,04:53)]Quote[/b] (N0PU @ July 26 2005,20:59)]Only problem is they can't be nominated unless they are 'slanted' one way or the other... The Prez, whatever Prez, won't pick 'em unless the Judge 'leans' the Prez's way... And the Congress won't approve 'em unless they 'lean' their way...

Pretty sick system huh?
Think it might need reform?

If you find a Judge, who is impartial in his thinking, and only judges the merits of the case without interjecting his own personal beliefs, He'll never make it to the Supreme Court... Can't be done!
What would be a better system?
I don't know....
and I have given it considerable thought...

The biggest problem is that the founding fathers never invisioned the system as it is today... They tried very hard to set the system up with checks and balances... They never saw mass and immediate communications coming... They never saw it coming as a second, by second, coordinated effort to load the house and the senate and the executive branch with Ls or Cs and then try to load the judicial to lean their way ...

I don't think they thought it would be possible...

Because of recent events where both parties have been caught with their fingers in the cookie jar at election time... I no longer trust the election system... I'm not saying all election officials are crooked, I'm just saying there are enough crooked ones to tip the scale... It is the 'win by any means' that bothers me... So electing the judiciary is out...

One of the problems we have is that people actually never want a 'fair' trial... They want the trial to be loaded in their favor... and by loading the Supreme Court with 'their kinda people' they are in effect making sure they don't get a fair trial, but that it is tilted to favor them...

Another man has been released from prison recently after serving 18 years for rape... DNA tests prove he could NOT have done the crime... Was it an overzealous prosecuter? Eye-witness that just wanted someone to go away for the crime? I don't know! But I do know he didn't get a fair deal and that 99% of the people in this country don't give a damn!

I don't know how to fix this system... It is better than most, but it still has holes in it...

[KE7DFP]

Cheer up, now that we are in the era of DNA, we can start saying #with absolute certainiy that someone is guilty!. #That means for cases which satisfy strict parameters, we can fast tract the appeals #and get executions done on a timely manner. #Most bad convictions involve eyewitness accounts. #In the future, these will hardly even be considered in the evidencuary process. #As far as to the picking of judges, our founding fathers in their wisdom, wanted whatever bias there is, to tip on the side of the peoples elected president. #That is one of the powers they wanted him to have.

[N0PU]

Quote[/b] ]"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

Quote[/b] ]"In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that 'the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.' If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow... The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please." --Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:212

Jefferson saw the problems with the judiciary when they first took over the interpretation of the constitution... See, it wasn't designed to be their job, they simply took the job on, saying that someone had to do it... But that wasn't the original intention...

But even in his day he saw the problem of judges being partial to their "...passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps." He saw one possible solution in the Spanish constitution.

I, as did he, see the possibility of the country folding under its own weight if we do not find a way for men to be honest and caring more for the institution than for their own positions and power. We are seeing more and more as we travel away from the founding times, the rude disregard for the constitution and what its meanings were at the time of its writing. I see more and more elected and appointed officials trying to get around the constitution rather than trying to stay within its bounds.

Why is that. A document we so cherish, that is suppose to protect our freedoms, is seen as a barrier to our activities rather than a guardian of our freedoms... Something is seriously wrong with that thinking....

[WA5KRP]

The hearings have started. I haven't heard everybody, but Schumer has clearly stated he wants to know how Roberts will rule once on the Big Bench.

Silly boy.



WA5KRP
Texas

[WA5KRP]

Permit me to paraphrase something spoken by Roberts during his opening statement before the Judiciary Committee. I know I'm pretty close:

"A judge is a servant of the law. A judge is like an umpire. Umpires don't make the rules, they apply the rules.......People don't go to a ball game to see the umpires."

That doesn't sound like a judicial activist.


WA5KRP
Texas

[k9kxq]

Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ July 21 2005,07:19)]Quote[/b] ] don't feel it is my job to bend the minds of anyone. I gladly share what knowledge I have gathered with those who are interested,but that's where my responsibility ends.


The problem is UEY some of your "knowledge" is flat out wrong - you post it as fact - then refuse to back it up!

Your last Gem was Joe Wilson admitted he filed a false report! #Of course you refused to back it up as usual - because you can't! #Your credibility is zero when you can't substantiate your points with facts.

This is another one where you are wrong - As Harry noted it is probably more like 55-45 at the most.
Just like the President can't seem to get things right or back them up...

kxq

[N6WK]

Quote[/b] (k9kxq @ Sep. 12 2005,22:36)]Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ July 21 2005,07:19)]Quote[/b] ] don't feel it is my job to bend the minds of anyone. I gladly share what knowledge I have gathered with those who are interested,but that's where my responsibility ends.


The problem is UEY some of your "knowledge" is flat out wrong - you post it as fact - then refuse to back it up!

Your last Gem was Joe Wilson admitted he filed a false report! Of course you refused to back it up as usual - because you can't! Your credibility is zero when you can't substantiate your points with facts.

This is another one where you are wrong - As Harry noted it is probably more like 55-45 at the most.
Just like the President can't seem to get things right or back them up...

kxq
Jim,
That is certainly one of the most true things I have read here on QRZ.
Seems the president likes to " make stuff up" ...also.

EFA, Good Point my friend!

Gordon

[w5klb]

Quote[/b] (N6WK @ Sep. 12 2005,19:54)]Quote[/b] (k9kxq @ Sep. 12 2005,22:36)]Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ July 21 2005,07:19)]Quote[/b] ] don't feel it is my job to bend the minds of anyone. I gladly share what knowledge I have gathered with those who are interested,but that's where my responsibility ends.


The problem is UEY some of your "knowledge" is flat out wrong - you post it as fact - then refuse to back it up!

Your last Gem was Joe Wilson admitted he filed a false report! #Of course you refused to back it up as usual - because you can't! #Your credibility is zero when you can't substantiate your points with facts.

This is another one where you are wrong - As Harry noted it is probably more like 55-45 at the most.
Just like the President can't seem to get things right or back them up...

kxq
Jim,
#That is certainly one of the most true things I have read here on QRZ.
Seems the president likes to " make stuff up" ...also.

EFA, #Good Point my friend!

Gordon
Just like some other people I know, huh?

Impeach Bush..
Jail Karl Rove...
The President lied.... uh huh

I have yet to see Gordon come up with ANY creditable evidence to support these claims is TO THIS DAY. And you all talk about Orv? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

Pot, meet Kettle.

Note: Posted in the interest of FULL disclosure.

[nx6d]

Quote[/b] (w5klb @ Sep. 13 2005,10:25)]Quote[/b] (N6WK @ Sep. 12 2005,19:54)]Quote[/b] (k9kxq @ Sep. 12 2005,22:36)]Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ July 21 2005,07:19)]Quote[/b] ] don't feel it is my job to bend the minds of anyone. I gladly share what knowledge I have gathered with those who are interested,but that's where my responsibility ends.


The problem is UEY some of your "knowledge" is flat out wrong - you post it as fact - then refuse to back it up!

Your last Gem was Joe Wilson admitted he filed a false report! #Of course you refused to back it up as usual - because you can't! #Your credibility is zero when you can't substantiate your points with facts.

This is another one where you are wrong - As Harry noted it is probably more like 55-45 at the most.
Just like the President can't seem to get things right or back them up...

kxq
Jim,
#That is certainly one of the most true things I have read here on QRZ.
Seems the president likes to " make stuff up" ...also.

EFA, #Good Point my friend!

Gordon
Just like some other people I know, huh?

Impeach Bush..
Jail Karl Rove...
The President lied.... uh huh

I have yet to see Gordon come up with ANY creditable evidence to support these claims is TO THIS DAY. And you all talk about Orv? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

Pot, meet Kettle.

Note: Posted in the interest of FULL disclosure.
Gary, Buddy.....

We've been over this MANY times before.

President Bush lied about the WMDs. The administration EVEN admitted it. It's been documented on here. Period.

Karl Rove leaked the name of Joseph Wilson's wife. Period.

What's with the constant spin? (Oh, yes it is!!)

Dave WX7B

[nx6d]

Ok,

Since this thread was directed at me originally, I'll give my two cents worth.

1. Judge Roberts isn't an idealogue like Scalia or Thomas.
2. He's conservative. So was O'Connor and Kennedy.
3. I don't think he's inherently evil.
4. Was the NARAL ad wrong? Yes.
5. Is Roberts going to be the second coming of Rehnquist? No.
6. Did President Bush make a shrewd move by appointing Roberts? Yes.
7. Do I think he's going to be a horrible justice like Scalia and Thomas? No.
8. Will he be confirmed? Yes.
9. Will the Democrats overreach and damage themselves if they pound Roberts too hard? Yes
10. Will President Bush be able to appoint some hard right nutcase if the vote on Roberts is overwhelming? Yes and No. If the opposition to Roberts gets too partisan and Roberts gets confirmed by a large percentage, then President Bush can probably do whatever he wants, and start pointing fingers, which this administration (and Republicans in general) are so good at.
11. What do I want to see? Confirm Roberts with a minimum of hassle. He's probably going to not be a nutcase like Scalia or Thomas.
12. President Bush is going to be under pressure to nominate a minority or woman to the court. I suspect he may appoint a woman, such as Edith Jones. The problem with nominating her, is she's a neanderthal in a dress. This could cause a nomination nightmare and further depress President Bush's polling numbers. (Yes, these guys pay attention to this stuff)
13. I think Alberto Gonzales is the next nominee. Hispanic, Already been confirmed once for another high level job and generally moderate, despite his bedding down with nutcase conservatives.

IMHO
Dave WX7B

[WA5KRP]

Quote[/b] (WX7B @ Sep. 13 2005,14:55)]
WX7B,


As a nutcase of the opposite slant, you at least prove you have within you the ability to post a rational, well thought out opinion. I knew that all along.

So far, I also tip my hat to the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee in that they have been sporting in their examination of the nominee. Frankly, I actually enjoyed Biden's performance this morning. I'm still waiting for the gloves to come off and the posturing to begin. I'd be very happy to be disappointed if it doesn't happen.

Then my apology will be updated.



WA5KRP
Texas

[w5klb]

Quote[/b] ]Gary, Buddy.....

We've been over this MANY times before...

Dave WX7B
Yeah we have. However, I got one tiny liiiitle question for ya:

<span style='font-size:19pt;line-height:100%'>WHERE'S THE PROOF?</span>

And it's NOT spin, it's a legitimate question that needs to be answered with FACTS, not conjecture and opinion.


I'll bet this question STILL goes unanswered.

[kb9iou]

The worst president in history?? That's a pretty bold statement considering the last bozo we had in office for 8 years who left this country wide open to terrorist attack by not doing anything and not taking a firm, aggressive stance against terrorism.

I firmly believe that we should continue to take the fight to the terrorists... As long as the war on terror is being fought on foreign soil, the amount of American casuaties is less than what it would be fighting a war on our soil.

[kf6rdn]

I can agree with this to a certain extent, but major question:.

Right or wrong, I am not going to say, but WHY did we go into Iraq, the man and group that were responsible for the worst attack the US has faced STILL goes free! 4 years later this group appears to be very unfettered even to the point of having US Citizen traitors now within it's ranks. #Why did we not focus 100% if our military efforts to destroy him and his group?

I'm no pro at this, but if someone punched me, and someone else threatened me, I'd beat the hell out of the guy that actually punched me, and make sure he was DOWN before asking the guy that threatened, &quot;Want some of this, b****&quot;? Maybe that is oversimplistic, but.. Also a bit obvious.

[AK7V]

Listening to the hearings sure drives home the point that an awful lot of senators are silly.

They're just using this as an opportunity to talk about themselves. It's dumb. They are campaigning, not actually trying to see if this guy would make a good judge.

I wish congress were more like the British parliament, and Roberts could call them idiots for not listening to his response correctly. And they could call each other names and yell for wasting time, etc. Too much polite behavior and friendly chuckling - it lends an undeserved air of haughty decorum when what's actually occuring is a lot of mindlessness and stupidity.

They should hold the confirmation hearings on QRZ.com. WX7B could tell Roberts to &quot;quit the noise, station.&quot; Someone else like UEY could tell Kennedy to &quot;lay off the socialism, take a drink, and go for a drive/swim. Oh, and take Feinstein with you.&quot;

[KC2KFC]

It will be interesting to see how accurate Drudge is on this one.

DEMOCRATS PLAN TO DESTROY ALITO (http://www.drudgereport.com/flash5ja.htm)

[k0ews]

I don't think so. They may try, but my guess is they won't. The American public isn't in the mood for this kind of garbage right now. As low as President Bush's approval ratings have been in recent months, Congress's numbers are even lower. Add to the fact that the current scandal has yet to name names, and the fact that the Republicans can use the &quot;nuclear option&quot; I think the Dems will let this one ride. It really doesn't change the balance of the court anyway on most issues. O'Connor was a conservative. Had this been a nomination to replace one of the more liberal justices, I think there would be much more said about all of this.
However, I could be wrong. The Democrats may percieve Bush's public approval rating as him weakening, and try to exploit that by blocking his nomination. If they succeed, they can further weaken his administration. If they lose, they hurt themselves in the long run. As I recall, most of the public wants Alito confirmed anyway, so it may not sit well with the average voter.

It's an interesting thing to think about in an election year.Alito Poll (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/PollVault/story?id=1426504&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312)

[WA5KRP]

More inept bungling that will see these buffoons shooting themselves in the foot if they use this tactic. Alito will sail into the Supreme Court - a smear campaign will be seen for what it is and not derail his nomination. Nobody has come up with anything to impugn his judicial credentials - he's a straight arrow.


WA5KRP
Texas

[WA5KRP]

DRUDGE REPORT UPDATE (http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2005/12/16/news/14189.shtml)


Looks like somebody blinked.



WA5KRP
Texas

[KC2KFC]

This should come as no surprise to anybody.
Schumer warns of filibuster of Alito (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060109-123424-3544r.htm)

[WA5KRP]

Quote[/b] ] Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat and a member of the committee, said that if Judge Alito refuses to answer questions on issues that Democrats deem vital, the party will be more likely to block the nomination.
&quot;If he continuously, given his previous record, refused to answer questions and hid behind 'I can't answer this because it might come before me,' it would increase the chances of a filibuster,&quot; Mr. Schumer said.


It seemed perfectly acceptable for Clinton nominee Ruth Bader Ginsburg to use that tactic and she rolled right in. Why is it now unacceptable for Alito to do the same?

Chuck Schumer is stacking his resume for Clown College.



WA5KRP
Texas

[w5klb]

Quote[/b] (WA5KRP @ Jan. 09 2006,08:35)]It seemed perfectly acceptable for Clinton nominee Ruth Bader Ginsburg to use that tactic and she rolled right in. #Why is it now unacceptable for Alito to do the same?
I can answer this in three words: Liberal Double Standards.

&quot;Fair&quot; is not in the Donkey Dictionary.

[N9XR]

Quote[/b] ]Quote (WA5KRP @ Jan. 09 2006,08:35)
It seemed perfectly acceptable for Clinton nominee Ruth Bader Ginsburg to use that tactic and she rolled right in. Why is it now unacceptable for Alito to do the same?

I can answer this in three words: Liberal Double Standards.

&quot;Fair&quot; is not in the Donkey Dictionary.

God and everyone knows that the standards set for Liberals are far beyond that of the Conservative. Conservatives could not set a ethical standard if their vote depended on it. (And it is obvious that it don't)

http://www.woodka.com/wp-content/stuff/scalito.jpg

Do we care if someone lies to the Senate Committee? Oh my no. Not of it is a low life lying Conservative. Americans expect lies and deciet from Conservatives. This is the norm that we all expect. A Liberal, on the other hand, is expected to be forthright, truthful and honest. A Liberal is one who we set our ethical standards by. Damn John Kerry for getting an undeserved Purple Heart for an un-documented minor scratch, but it is expected for Dubya to be out snorting coke during his stint in the military.

It is all standards. Liberals always set the standard, and Conservatives view how far down the scale they wind up from there.

Dubya brags constantly that he was a &quot;C&quot; student in school. Why? Because it is expected for a Conservative to have low standards.

Conservatives attack Hillary because she is not attractive. They can't attack her for her high (well relatively high) standards. Conservatives understand uglyness. Conservatives don't understand the rule of law. So when Alito says he is consistantly inconsistant, the Conservatives point out that it is true that there is a point where he is consistant. Low standards.

Look here conservatives. Raise your standards. Read. Read something with substance. If it attacks people for the sake of attacking people, you will get little from it. We already know how to attack. We need to understand each other. I ask people on these threads what they think, what they look for in gov't, and I either get no answer, or I get some sound bite from Rush Limbaugh or Pat Robertson. Think for yourself for a minute, and then you can go back to your low standard life, but for a moment you will know what really matters.

N9XR

[KC2KFC]

The latest on Drudge about the Democrat attack machine (http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm)

[N9XR]

Indeed KFC. Does the Fudge Report mention all the nice things said by Sen. Graham said that brought Alito's wife to tears? No because we do not expect Conservatives to be thourough. Does he mention that she had a Migraine according to Sen. Spector? No because we cannot expect a full story from the Conservative Fudge Report. Does he mention that Alito's wife did not even take his name in marriage? No. That is something a respectable wife like Hillary would do, and we know that Conservatives are inferior.

Live in your make believe world. Live with low expectations of your politicians and newswriters. Don't demand the best for yourself and the country. It's a free country KFC. Live it like you like, and I will live mine to the best of my ability.

N9XR

[wv6z]

*yawn* Oh sorry, were we discussing politics again? http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d148/ku4my/dianesmash.gif

[N9XR]

Quote[/b] ]*yawn* Oh sorry, were we discussing politics again?

Not according to Conservatives. The Supreme Court is not political. I like your Avitar of Dubya Bush. That is political.

N9XR

[KC2KFC]

Quote[/b] (n9xr @ Jan. 12 2006,06:40)]Indeed KFC. Does the Fudge Report mention all the nice things said by Sen. Graham said that brought Alito's wife to tears? No because we do not expect Conservatives to be thourough. Does he mention that she had a Migraine according to Sen. Spector? No because we cannot expect a full story from the Conservative Fudge Report. Does he mention that Alito's wife did not even take his name in marriage? No. That is something a respectable wife like Hillary would do, and we know that Conservatives are inferior.

Live in your make believe world. Live with low expectations of your politicians and newswriters. Don't demand the best for yourself and the country. It's a free country KFC. Live it like you like, and I will live mine to the best of my ability.

N9XR
Xray Romeo,

You must be referring to this part of the testimony:

Quote[/b] ]GRAHAM: If you don't mind the suspicious nature that I have is that you may be saying that because you want to get on the Supreme Court; that you're disavowing this now because it doesn't look good.

And really what I would look at to believe you're not -- and I'm going to be very honest with you -- is: How have you lived your life? Are you really a closet bigot?

ALITO: I'm not any kind of a bigot, I'm not.

GRAHAM: No, sir, you're not. And you know why I believe that? Not because you just said it -- but that's a good enough reason, because you seem to be a decent, honorable man. I have got reams of quotes from people who have worked with you, African American judges -- I've lost my quotes.

Judge Higginbotham -- I don't know where they're at. But glowing quotes about who you are, the way you've lived your life; law clerks, men and women, black and white, your colleagues who say that Sam Alito, whether I agree with him or not, is a really good man.

You know why I believe you when you say that you disavow those quotes? Because the way you have lived your life and the way you and your wife are raising your children.

Let me tell you this: Guilt by association is going to drive good men and women away from wanting to sit where you're sitting. And we're going to go through a bit of this ourselves as congressmen and senators.

People are going to take a fact that we got a campaign donation from somebody who's found out to be a little different than we thought they were -- and our political opponent's going to say, &quot;Aha, I got you!&quot;

Transcript (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/11/AR2006011101674.html)

The AP story left out what Graham said after Alito answered. Judging by your words you seem to have a hatred for conservatives. I could be wrong. I prefer to discuss ideas and point out there are always two sides to a story. And yes I do listen to the liberal side and in some cases you will find I agree.

And thank you for your advice on how to live MY life, but I'm pretty sure I can figure that out on my own.

Good day to you sir! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[N9XR]

To answer questions, no, I do not hate Conservatives. Many of my friends are staunch Conservative. I don't hate them. I don't hate you, or anyone on this board. You would think with the grilling I am getting that I should be the Supreme Court nominee!

I am not telling anyone how to run their life. I am making a suggestion that you can enrich your life to go beyond where you are now, if only for a while.

I don't see anything new on your transcript. I said that Graham had said nice things to Alito, the transcript confirms that. Graham was backing Alito at the time his wife broke into tears.

I realized that I erred in who I quoted, but it was Orrin Hatch who had said that she had a migraine. Please forgive my lack of perfection that normal Liberals possess.

Also, Alito's wife's last name is Bomgartener. This is also apparently true.

As a matter of fact, and I do mean fact, the page you link to has no mention of a quote from a Liberal up to the point where Ms. Bomgartener broke down.

Then there is the line:

ALITO: I will keep an open mind on all issues.

It is easier said than done. I feel that you have attacked me and the only error I find I made after going back over it was the name of the Conservative which I had quoted. You did not even catch that.

N9XR

[WA5KRP]

Sen. Kennedy strikes me as a man that has exhausted his political reserves yet he remains the figurehead of the Democratic Party - certainly that is the case on the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearings on Alito's nomination.

In my eyes, I see Kennedy pathetically struggling to derail the nomination of a man with obvious decency and an impeccable judicial track record. #Unfortunately for Kennedy and Biden, there's not another Anita Hill out there to glom upon and divert the media's and public's attention - not that the tactic worked with Clarence Thomas but it damn sure created a lot of unnecessary hell.

I see the loser in the whole Alito nomination process being Sen. Ted Kennedy. #As a Judiciary Committee member, he has stooped to tactics OFs like me remember last being used by Joe McCarthy. #Alito will go to the Supreme Court. #In contrast, I say Ted Kennedy has relegated himself to ignobility while retaining the title of US Senator. #



WA5KRP
Texas

[KI4BNC]

Quote[/b] (WA5KRP @ Jan. 13 2006,00:45)]Sen. Kennedy strikes me as a man that has exhausted his political reserves yet he remains the figurehead of the Democratic Party - certainly that is the case on the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearings on Alito's nomination.

In my eyes, I see Kennedy pathetically struggling to derail the nomination of a man with obvious decency and an impeccable judicial track record. #Unfortunately for Kennedy and Biden, there's not another Anita Hill out there to glom upon and divert the media's and public's attention - not that the tactic worked with Clarence Thomas but it damn sure created a lot of unnecessary hell.

I see the loser in the whole Alito nomination process being Sen. Ted Kennedy. #As a Judiciary Committee member, he has stooped to tactics OFs like me remember last being used by Joe McCarthy. #Alito will go to the Supreme Court. #In contrast, I say Ted Kennedy has relegated himself to ignobility while retaining the title of US Senator. #



WA5KRP
Texas
I agree.
Well said.
did you see the hearings when he lost it?
funniest thing I have seen in a while!
the funniest part was when the other guy put him in his place.
the only words I can bring to mind to describe what I saw was :


pitiful.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif

[KI4BNC]

Quote[/b] (INFIDEL @ Jan. 13 2006,01:01)]How about pathetic? #You'd be a little frusted by now,too, if you had to put up with so much Republican crap, AND their #Culture of Corruption. #Pelosi's right.
Pelosi can't even BLINK!
THAT'S pathetic.

[kc7jty]

Are you a hamster?

[KI4BNC]

Quote[/b] (INFIDEL @ Jan. 13 2006,09:06)]That's getting pretty low, picking on a #poor women for trying to look her best. #Isn't that what we've programed them to do? #She just wants to look pretty, is that so bad. #Come to think of it... Kerry just wants to look pretty (hi hi). #You can say what you want, #but, #Nancy has probally done more than any single person to remedy the plight of undocumented visiting workers. Without them, there wouldn't be a U.S.A. #They're the glue that holds this country together. #If we'd offer a decent education program for them, we would have 11 million PHD.s # #instead of cheap farm and construction workers. You get what you pay for America.
see signature of post directly below the one quoted here and you will see that I would tend to agree with kc7jty
about the glue.and as far as the pelosi thing,well I just don't trust a woman that can blink her lips but not her eyes.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[kc7jty]

Quote[/b] (KI4BNC @ Jan. 12 2006,15:52)]Quote[/b] (INFIDEL @ Jan. 13 2006,09:06)]That's getting pretty low, picking on a #poor women for trying to look her best. #Isn't that what we've programed them to do? #She just wants to look pretty, is that so bad. #Come to think of it... Kerry just wants to look pretty (hi hi). #You can say what you want, #but, #Nancy has probally done more than any single person to remedy the plight of undocumented visiting workers. Without them, there wouldn't be a U.S.A. #They're the glue that holds this country together. #If we'd offer a decent education program for them, we would have 11 million PHD.s # #instead of cheap farm and construction workers. You get what you pay for America.
see signature of post directly below the one quoted here and you will see that I would tend to agree with kc7jty
about the glue.and as far as the pelosi thing,well I just don't trust a woman that can blink her lips but not her eyes.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
Woops...I changed my signature line already.

[kc7jty]

Quote[/b] (n9xr @ Jan. 10 2006,23:14)]http://www.woodka.com/wp-content/stuff/scalito.jpg
This one is excellent, what a laugh, but you forgot a mini Clarence Thomas as well.