Posted on 07/03/2005 4:38:32 AM PDT by Alas Babylon!
Malveaux... that's crapweasel for "mad cow," isn't it?
If I look at the full spectrum of all things I believe in, I am more conservative than liberal. Some candidates would be more conservative than I, some less.
However, in politics the liberals have thrown down the gauntlet, and anyone who is a member of the Bush administration, regardless of where they fall on the liberal-conservative template, will be demonized.
I found it interesting that the left was going after Gonzalez, as well as the right. I have also noticed a group of liberals supporting Gonzalez, no doubt hoping that the right will kill his nomination.
My personal opinion is that we all should remain calm and seriously consider whoever is nominated, meanwhile ignoring special interst groups from both sides of the aisle.
You should have known who I meant. The only RINO NOT everywhere on TV this morning was McPain.
"You should have known who I meant."
Maybe I suspected that you didn't mean Hunter .. but remember I'm not the only one reading this .. there are probably over 10,000 people reading it and we need to make our statements clear and truthful.
I guess I'm a little sensitive about Hunter because my local paper in San Diego is trying to lump him together with Duke Cunningham - and it has me a little ticked off at the moment.
I doubt very much that you have done all what you described below. We have seen a lot of your likes here on FR with all their pretense how much they helped the GOP and how they voted for Bush twice, etc..., but eventually they have been exposed to who they really are, trolls or third party bitter losers or Buchananites.
As for me, I will be working for the nomination of George Allen to be the next President of the US. I have already contributed to his campaign war chest.
I forgot to add to my list my volunteer efforts at GWB's Second Inaugural Ball at the Washington Convention Center. Believe it or not. LOL.
George Allen/Codi Rice--08
Down with the Beast.
I consider "true" FReepers quite savvy and generally up on our Congressional delegations. If not, there is always someone down the thread to clarify, just as you did. Not much gets overlooked here.
Let's face it there is fr and everywhere else.
LOL - good one! Either that or evil heiffer ;-)
Thank you, thank you!
The liberty of future generations is so important that my meager contributions on various threads are intended for the purpose of keeping the focus on that "miracle of America," conceived and achieved by our genius forefathers so many years ago, and the ideas and principles (truths) upon which it was founded! As we lose sight of the "ideas," we most certainly will begin to put out the light of liberty for posterity.
Again, thank you for your kind words, and the lovely award design, snugs2.
Well deserved. You did a great job of capturing the essence of the weekend. Congrats again.
But again .. you're assuming people continue reading down the thread.
Oh, c'mon. My statement from the beginning could have been understood by all. Any who couldn't figure it out, aren't really keeping up anyway. You're being over-sensitive.
Andrea Mitchell is what she has always been - supports the clintons and hates the Bush's - all of them!
And she is married to Alan Greenspan. Lets hope not all wives have influence.
OMG, over 600 posts. I'm doomed to never be able to keep up here I can tell that right now. 8)
I do hope that Bush nominates someone just like Scalia or Thomas. Either Luddig, Owens, Pryor, or Jones. Or someone JUST like them. A strict constructionist conservative Justice. Because time has proven that it is the ideological liberals on the SCOTUS, Stevens, Ginsburg, Bryer, Souter, who have been making activist legislative decisions from the bench, like the immenant domain case, not the conservtives. And o'conner don't seem to mind being taken for the ride, putting the Constitution in the trunk.
I can't think of a single decision written by Renquist, God rest is soul, Scalia, or Thomse, that was reguarded as radical or activist or in violation of the Constitution. Time has proven that liberal peoples are too activist to be trusted to be SC Justices, because they can't faithfully enforce what the Constitution says, over what they wish it said. I meam Breyer uses foreign precedent to reach his decisions, and ginsburg thinks 12 year old girls should be able to concent to sex and radical things like that. Liberals cannot be trusted on the court to obey the Constitution over their own political bias. Conservatives have proven they can be trusted to do that.
BBL. 8)
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.