Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-63 next last
To: LurkedLongEnough
Consensus? I urge you to read the tagline that I've been using for months now.
30 posted on
10/28/2005 7:08:35 AM PDT by
Tanniker Smith
(By defiintion, we cannot have Consensus until you agree with me.)
To: LurkedLongEnough
"I urge the president to take seriously the Constitution's charge and to engage the U.S. Senate both Republicans and Democrats in a process of genuine consultation LOL!!!!!!!!!!
Stupid woman - has never read the Constitution I bet. just uses it for TP.
31 posted on
10/28/2005 7:08:40 AM PDT by
grobdriver
(Let the embeds check the bodies!)
To: LurkedLongEnough
Will the fat lady still be singing the same song if(God forbid) she ever gets elected CinC? I think not.
To: LurkedLongEnough
Is she out of her friggin' mind? No president has EVER had to get a consensus when naming a Supreme Court nominee. Of course, there has never been a president so hated by the left as President Bush is. W needs to tell her, and the rest of the dimoCRACKS to sit down and STFU! This is his job and duty and his alone. Ole Crusty must be practicing for the day she's behind the desk in the Oval Office. That day can NEVER be permitted to happen.
34 posted on
10/28/2005 7:10:24 AM PDT by
NCC-1701
(RADICAL ISLAM IS A CULT. IT MUST BE ERADICATED ASAP)
To: LurkedLongEnough
Ann Coulter I think would be a good consensus choice.
35 posted on
10/28/2005 7:10:52 AM PDT by
2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
(Is your problem ignorance or apathy? I don't know and I don't care.)
To: LurkedLongEnough
It takes a village you know.
36 posted on
10/28/2005 7:11:05 AM PDT by
yobid
(Don't pet the sweaty things.......)
To: LurkedLongEnough
Tell me they aren't scared! LMAO!
38 posted on
10/28/2005 7:11:39 AM PDT by
mosquitobite
(What we permit; we promote. ~ Mark Sanford for President!)
To: LurkedLongEnough
Just who in the h3ll does she think she is telling dubya who to pick. I wish someone would dig up the dirt on her that she has stashed away and get her and her usless pervert of a husband out of our lives.
39 posted on
10/28/2005 7:12:52 AM PDT by
Dustbunny
(Main Stream Media -- Making 'Max Headroom' a reality.)
To: LurkedLongEnough
Yeah. Check with Hill and Bill.
40 posted on
10/28/2005 7:14:46 AM PDT by
Eric in the Ozarks
(Janice Rogers Brown is the only High Court nominee that is acceptable to me, period.)
To: LurkedLongEnough
Just the way her husband sought consensus when he appointed Breyer and Ginsburg? Breyer, who thinks the words of the Constitution don't matter, that it is "a living and evolving document", that foreign law matters?
41 posted on
10/28/2005 7:15:20 AM PDT by
mak5
To: LurkedLongEnough
Hillary, which part of "the president shall nominate" don't you understand?
43 posted on
10/28/2005 7:16:03 AM PDT by
almcbean
To: LurkedLongEnough
Sorry, Hillary, but ... been there, done that. Miers was the consensus candidate.
Now, it is incumbent on Bush to appoint a true conservative to counterbalance Ginsberg -- the appointee of your husband.
45 posted on
10/28/2005 7:16:54 AM PDT by
TomGuy
To: LurkedLongEnough
And President Hillary will do the same for us, right? Wrong.
The liberals have played these games for too long. They call for Republicans to move as close to them as possible, yet they NEVER do the same for the Right.
Why do so many on our side fall for it? Are we the waterboys of the Left? Ignore them.
46 posted on
10/28/2005 7:18:40 AM PDT by
Gelato
To: LurkedLongEnough
Hillary, Bush won - Bush gets to select his judicial nominees - did your rapist husband give up his rights as president to select? Have either of you ever done anything by consensus? How stupid do you think we are?
48 posted on
10/28/2005 7:19:36 AM PDT by
yoe
To: LurkedLongEnough
"I urge the president to take seriously the Constitution's charge and to engage the U.S. Senate both Republicans and Democrats in a process of genuine consultation in order to identify and ultimately confirm a consensus nominee," the New York senator said in a statement Thursday. Utter nonsense. And this from a woman who has been touted as a potential SC nominee. Of course. this came from Democrats, no lovers or understanders of the Constituion themselves.
49 posted on
10/28/2005 7:19:39 AM PDT by
CaptRon
(Pedecaris alive or Raisuli dead)
To: LurkedLongEnough
Gosh, I guess he should just kneel down and let Hillary decide who is to sit on the court.
50 posted on
10/28/2005 7:22:37 AM PDT by
Flint
To: LurkedLongEnough
Hillary wants a consensus nominee, like Ruth Bader-Ginsburg! Doesn't she have to get on her broom for Halloween?
52 posted on
10/28/2005 7:23:23 AM PDT by
Rummyfan
To: LurkedLongEnough
and ultimately confirm a consensus nominee Anyone want to start a poll of how much longer it will be before Hillary stoops to read the Constitution?
To: LurkedLongEnough
Consensus, as defined by Hillary Clinton
Pro-choice
Anti-Gun
Anti-War, if it suits the nominee's political purpose
Pro-terrorist rights
Anti National Security
Pro Open Borders
in short, when you hear a lib say "consensus" just replace that with "follow the democratic party line".
So the title of this artcle could have been:
Senator Clinton Urges President To Select Next Supreme Court Nominee By Follwoing Democratic Party Line
To: LurkedLongEnough
"Consensus" nominee, huh? I cannot believe the arrogance of that woman! When her husband was President, he named who he thought best reflected his beliefs and his party's philosophy. He didn't go looking around for a consensus candidate. This is another example of Democrats trying to get the President to give them what they can't win at the ballot box.
("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")
61 posted on
10/28/2005 7:30:49 AM PDT by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-63 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson