Posted on 10/09/2005 5:13:45 AM PDT by Alas Babylon!
The Talk Shows
Sunday, October 9th, 2005
Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:
FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich; Texas Supreme Court Judge Nathan Hecht; Gary Bauer, president of the American Values Coalition; Dr. Steven Rosenberg, chief surgeon with the National Institutes of Health.
MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Pat Buchanan, former presidential candidate; Richard Land, president, Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention.
FACE THE NATION (CBS): Sens. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., and Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.
THIS WEEK (ABC): Sens. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., ranking Democrat of the committee; Mike Leavitt, secretary, Health and Human Services.
LATE EDITION (CNN) : Sens. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Richard Durbin, D-Ill.; Mowaffak al-Rubaie, Iraqi national security adviser; the Rev. Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition; Dr. David Nabarro, U.N. bird flu envoy.
My party would be Independent.
"Loony Toons Perot (whom I have personal knowledge of)? NAZI Buchannen?"
I have voted for Perot in the past, as I moved from the Rat party to the Reform party and now to the Independent party.
I do not know what I could have posted that would make you take that leap of logic.
damn, now the secrets out :)
I agree with you...we help because we care...just like we helped in Iran last year...KNOWING that it wouldn't help a bit with the government...but the people of Iran, who want to fight the mullahs...won't forget that we helped..
I do think that when Geraldo mentioned the "national security" aspect, he was probably including the "hearts and minds"...because we know, that in the Middle East...winning the hearts and minds is a hugh step in convincing these countries to fight for democracy...
which ultimately helps OUR security...
As for Rush, well it's easy to pass this off on the Senate RINO's. They besides Hillary and Ted Kennedy and the media, they are his favorite boogey men. Something backfires, Rush will blame one of the above. But I say not so fast. The conservatives and moderates embraced Roberts with no problem. Matter of fact, several dems too. Even Hillary, though she did not support, did not trash him in her PR announcement.
But I don't think the problem comes from the moderate Republicans. THis time it will come from the right. Sure you can use the excuse it was the moderates who forced the move that makes the right seem edgy. But then that what's leadership is all about. Taking those who disagree and moving them to your position. There's ways to do that. Beleive me, I've seen coporate Presidents fired because they couldn't get union leadership to agree to contract provisions. Fired because they failed at leadership. Same thing here. Either Bush is a great leader and MAKESthings happen or he isn't.
Just now watching the replay of Fox News Sunday...
I just HATE that ole Mara and Juan and Kristol are shaking their heads with FAKE sympathy to the "Bush Administration" because of Rove and Cheney and Libby possibly going down, because of the Plame thing...
Seeing them all shake their heads with "sadness", while whe KNOW they are tapdancing under the desk, is more than I could bear...changed channels...!!!
I see you continue to insist on posting non-sequiturs as if they were a response to a point made. Lousy rhetorical device. In fact, it's dishonest and would count against you in any first year law school course.
Here's two very contradictory statements:
My guy would be President Bush and every Republican I supported and voted for.
I have voted for Perot in the past, as I moved from the Rat party to the Reform party and now to the Independent party.
You are not one of the good guys. You are one of the mindless idiots taken in by the man my mom described, from direct knowledge, as "crazy as a bitsy bug." The man who gave us Clinton because he hated the Bush family and didn't care how much damage his insanity did to the country. You were sucked in by and supported that nut job. You gave us Clinton. Your judgement is seriously in doubt.
As to Kerry and company, if you voted for Perot, you gave aid and comfort to the party of Kerry, intentional or not.
AHHHHHH. YOU are Still deliberately misrepresenting the facts. That is NOT what you claimed. YOU claimed Rush was one of you hate Miers critics. I pointed out that was NOT at all what HE said. NOW you are trying to claim 'Well you have to know how to inteprete Rush'. That is MY point. YOU are hearing what you WANT to hear, NOT what is said. Sorry Joe. You are nailed. ALSO, since you have misrpresented on this, I cannot trust your quotes. So I went back and checked THIS statment you made.
No ones trashing Bork? That was only through the first 24 posts on that thread. Wrong again Joe. Robert Bork's name NEVER appears in the 1st 24 posts on this thread. You are trying to make the same sort of nonsensical apples to oranges comaprisions. Does NOT at all address my point. You keep trying to make these sweeping generalizations about what the Meirs defenders are saying. Go Look at my point. I pointed out most of what is said is HERE is not bashing bork but pointing out how Miers out Borks Bork on 2nd Amendment So I have to wonder, since you did not tell the truth on this, how do I know you are telling the truth on the rest. Logical fallacy any way Joe. Claiming "All" the Miers defenders are "Bashing Bork" then citing a half dozen posts does NOT prove all or many or most. It proves 6 are, IF your quotes are accurate. In fact, since you are so found of taking things out of context, I wonder if you are even accurately quoting them? Care to give up or are just going to keep embarrassing yourself? When you can FACTUALLY debate, come on back. As long as you INSIST on using this sort of Moveon.org style debate tactics, you are going to keep getting your head handed to you. So NOW Joe. Here is your chance. NO adaptations. NO name calling. No Character Assassinations. No misquotes, misstatements and misrepresentations. No assumptions. No logical fallacies MAKE the FACTUAL case.
WHY should Miers be rejected?
As the keeper of the Fox News ping list...
I have asked and not found anyone on this thread that knows...
I turned on Fox this afternoon, just in time to hear the two co-hosts talking to Geraldo....and telling him that they would "miss" him...
Do you know anything about Geraldo leaving Fox??
I checked the Fox website...and couldn't find anything.
Care to give up or are just going to keep embarrassing yourself? When you can FACTUALLY debate, come on back. As long as you INSIST on using this sort of Moveon.org style debate tactics, you are going to keep getting your head handed to you. So NOW Joe. Here is your chance. NO adaptations. NO name calling. No Character Assassinations. No misquotes, misstatements and misrepresentations. No assumptions. No logical fallacies MAKE the FACTUAL case. WHY should Miers be rejected?
The one thing that has become clear to me today, the folks attacking Miers and Bush and claiming the title of "true conservatives," at least on FR right now, are NOT "our side." They are buchannenbots and, primarily perotistas. They hate Republicans more than they hate Democrats, but the overwhelming emotion they have for anyone is HATE.
This is not an "inside the family" fight. This is not even the "crazy uncle from the woods." This is the escaped lunatics from the insane asylum trying to pretend to be one of us.
Aw Jeez, they added that fake reporter Dan Rather to their 6o Minutes "I'm so and so and you are not" ---thingy at the first of the show...
BTW...Leslie Stahl's smarmy remark about NASCAR was stupid!
You said you agree w me, but, perhaps you misconstrued my remarks (and/or I didn't articulate them as well as I should). Though you qualify your agreement with that you may have been painting w too wide a brush.
"The DemonRats do not seem to be having a problem getting their troops to follow at any cost."
I respectfully disagree. The LEFT WING of the Dims will fall in line at any costs. They all have the same mantra: Bush is bad, Pubbies are bad, the war is bad, the economy is bad, etc. The few moderate-conservative Dims do not fall in line w the votes or the mantra (e.g., Zell Miller, Nelson of Nebraska, Nelson of Fla come to mind). The party as a whole is in disarray and have no platform and no unified beliefs.
"Yet the RINO's rule the republican party and the "faithful" have no problem dragging you over the coals if you happen to have another point of view." "No one is allowed to disagree with the party line, which is exactly how the Rats handle the "problem". Try posting anything even slightly off of the party line at DU and you see the same kind of posts you see here."
I don't agree w either of those statements. To date, the only advantage I recall the RINOs having an advantage on are court nominees. While the HM nomination has been the most contentious I've ever seen on FReepers, since I've been a member (a little over a year - lurker prior to that), I think most of the debates have been respectful w most people willing to listen to both sides of an issue. I think when people push back is when others try to parrot DNC talking points (ZOT) and/or make claims that are heresay and they cannot back up. We don't need FReepers doing that - - we already have the MSM doing that w all of their anonymous sources. I respect the fact that folks here want legitimate sources and facts and then make up their minds and/or comment on them accordingly.
"Before you are selected to lead a country, you should be able to lead your own party."
I think the President, for the most part, has done a good job of that so far. There are those, such as McCain, who are, for the lack of a better term, 'rebels', who aren't going to go w the Pres and/or party line regardless of who is leading. They want to be in the spotlight (like Clinton) and want to make a name for themselves and, who may run for Pres in '08, so they keep trying to remind us of how 'important' they are or how 'correct' their viewpoint is (even though many of us believe the opposite).
The definitions are as malleable as Play Doh, aren't they? The more trolls, the more the definition of RINO is custom molded to fit the argument. There are no "real" RINOS, only CINOS (Conservatives in Name Only to newbies; CINOS use the same dirty, illegal tactics as Democrats and talk the same talking points as Democrats, but identify themselves as "conservative". They even use Marx and Trotsky in some arguments)
Hmmm you may be right. In any serious discussion you should get a bell curve. Some negative, some neutral, some positive. Funny how we get NOTHING but 100% NEGATIVE from certain posters.
She cleaned it up, big time.
I'm surprised. Most Texan's with any political or legal smarts at all that I know are well acquainted with those facts. Where did you claim to practice law again?
I read through the posts to gather the information I need to determine my point of view on an issue that will effect America for years to come.
When I read the posts I see a party that I have supported tearing itself apart. So I comment on that and try to reason with people to tone down the name calling and demeaning posts.
We should be better than that.
Is it a feeling to point out that if we continue to alienate the people that voted President Bush into office by resorting to name calling rather than intelligent discussion the Republican party will lose elections? I've read a lot of your posts and you seem intelligent and capable of making your point without demeaning people.
Is it to much to ask that people exercise a little tact when communicating their point of view?
I am starting to become convinced that the Republican party is not much different than the DemonRat party when it comes to people that do not toe the party line.
Well, it was bound to come out. If Rove can cook up a tsunami, heat up the sun to cause global warming on Mars and manufacture Katrina in order to steal their oil and profit Halliburton, what's a little thing like recreating life?
You know, I'm beginning to like this debate: this time, instead of watching the liberals selfdestruct, we can watch the final death throes of the extreme right wing of this party go down in flames.
There is a thread here called "Why Miers". IF it is even half true, it worse then we expected. Two things. 1. A lot of the "Conservative" heros said 'NO way am I going thru that. B. The gang of 7, Mclame and Specter pretty much said they would make sure anyone too right would get dumped. I just read it. Given the 90-9 vote on the Terrorist Protection Amendment, we should of known. "Our team" in the Senate has all ready surrendered. Seems long time Washington Political Egos are more important then the Conservative Agenda. God I am sick of these Senatoral surrender monkeys. I tell you this. IT WILL NOT be a Republican US Senator on the ticket in 2008. The whine all the time crowd may love this, but the Party activists nominate the nominee. They ARE not going to be happy about this at ALL. Better start looking around for a real good Republican Governor to run
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.