| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 07/19/2005 5:18:23 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
new thread http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1446387/posts |
Posted on 07/19/2005 9:23:04 AM PDT by Howlin
Edited on 07/19/2005 5:12:12 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
That's easy. Elections are comparative choices - not absolute. Republicans are better than democrats. Next question.
I love that "dumb as crap" underground. ROTFLMAO!!!!
I think it's funny how many panties are in a bunch over something that hasn't happened yet. I agree that this is an EXTREMEMLY important nomination, but also that we should just sit back and wait before jumping off a cliff.
Now, if it goes south tomorrow, cliff jumping may be in order. W just may surprise the panties off of a lot of us! LOL!
The thing is, I have my doubts that Clement would pass the Fry Cook test.
A voice of sanity! Bravo
In some states, yes. In other states, more restrictions will be in place. And in a few states abortion will remain completely legal.
Yeah, why vote Republican when we can let 'Rats win and nominate the likes of Ginsberg and Breyer? /sarcasm off
Let's just let everybody judge for themselves:
However, unless he's damned sure that she's going to vote against Roe, then he should not nominate the person.
By "damned" sure, I mean so sure that he is willing to risk eternal damnation if he's wrong.
Like I said - I'm not saying Clement goes one way or the other. We don't know yet. But it's not unreasonable for the conservative wing of this part to be at least mildly disappointed that Bush is going to nominate another mystery figure who has - as Mark Levin points out - a thin trail to go on.
Sycophants have no original thoughts or ideas. I prefer not to be a sycophant and call a spade a spade. The lack of intestinal fortitude demonstrated by our two-presidential-term majority Congress is enough reason to dread the unknown...
Or maybe it should be time for conservative to bend over and ask for vasoline.
A pro-abortion choice like Edith Clement is going to make Planned Parenthood and NARAL happy. :(
I'd better not go there.
I mean a nominee the Dums hate because his/her views
are well known, not just because a Bush is making the
appointment. I mean a deliberate ice pick in the eye.
Why Judicial Appointments Do NOT Matter (Schiavo)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1371395/posts
If you got 'em, pop 'em!
There's quite a difference in "standing by idly" and using the type of vitriolic rheotoric you used in that post.
But I'm sure you're incapable of seeing the difference.
That is ridiculous.
I have one exactly like that! I just might need it before 9pm.
It is funny but also sad. The usual, anti-Bush, anti-Republican members of FR are whining because of something that the President hasn't even done. It happens every time the President is set to do anything. They will always say he is making the wrong decision simply because they hate him. They're no different than the DUmmies except they claim to be conservatives but in reality are just angry people who mostly don't vote, vote third party, and/or love Pat Buchanan.
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.