Posted on 10/31/2005 3:12:28 AM PST by kcvl
If you type in the stock symbol "NYT" at www.marketwatch.com or Yahoo Finance and bring up a chart for the last few years, you will experience satisfaction and joy!
If I believe everything I hear?????? I posted to you what I heard Alito say.....THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT, FOR NOMINATING ME TO REPLACE JUSTICE O'CONNOR. Deport posted to you what the President said: "As a result of my decision to nominate Judge Roberts to be chief justice, I also have the responsibility to submit a new nominee to follow Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.'
Why don't you now send a fax to the President and to Alito tell them both that they're helping the liberals and Marxists by saying what they've said and that they've got it all wrong, too.
Thank you!!! That is the point I've been trying to make all day. The fact of the matter is that the court is pretty much staying with the current balance and we shouldn't let the democrats spin it like their has been some sort of right wing coup.
If the court had been shifted hard to the right by these two nominations then I certainly wouldn't have any problem with it, but since that is not the case, we shouldn't let the democrats spin this into something that's it's not.
The Rats can claim (and do, without consequence, it seems) anything they wish; that doesn't make it true. If 2 + 2 = 4 (it does), the liberals/commies/Rats would try to find a way (probably already did) to make its sum seem something altother different, as well, if that suited their needs. And that's what they do: lie/spin/deceive.
What effect it has to have Roberts sitting in the Chief Justice chair and Alito in O'Connor's matters, but it's not a catastrophe. I would have preferred Rehnquist lived, or, in the alternative (as became necessary), for Scalia to replace him, and two conservatives sitting in the seats of Scalia and O'Connor. But the President felt it more practical to have someone conservative replace Rehnquist immediately....and from what I've read, he certainly didn't want Stevens to sit as Chief Justice even temporarily. Therefore, Scalia was out of the picture, because he'd have to go through confirmation hearings for Chief Justice, had he been picked.....the result was that the President decided to pull back Roberts for O'Connor's slot and resubmit him for Chief Justice, which necessitated another Justice for O'Connor.
And that's just the reality of the situation. It's called life and sh*t happens.
How sweet. :&[
That is it. Amazing how some of these people can't see that and take the basic line of what the MSM and Bush say without thinking it through.
Contrary to the hysteria, Bush, the MSM and these limited minds by some FR members, ............ as you say, one moderate and one conservative was replaced with one moderate and one conservative.
You are correct -- they ignore the preprinted forms/letters. I always use my own words.
Becasue the fact is one moderate and one conservative are replaced with one moderate with one conservative. No net difference, presumably. We should drive that message home and not give up ground to the MSM on that.
Looks like this discussion is ongoing....
They can argue about ideology all they want but the facts remain that Roberts replaced Rehnquist's position and the Chief Justice slot all in one nomination and Alito has been named to replace O'Connor's slot when and if he is confirmed.
Now who is right or left of whom is another debate. But if the GOP Senators hold together with 51 votes they can seat anyone nominated be it a winger from either side of the ideology spectrum or a moderator. We'll soon see if there are 51 votes.
Take care
Agreed; the facts are as you typed; debating ideology/strategy is another animal altogether.
Let's hope the pubbies grow a spine, support the President, represent the conservatives who elected them, and get Alito through.
But they will; the media is the Rat's mouth. The best we can do is point out their distortion/spin.
Who in their "limited minds" ever said otherwise?
Take a look: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=NYT&t=3m&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=
Yes, that makes me smile :), because having political power, as we have shown in the last month (I have no doubt we had something to do with events leading to Scalito...) is one thing, but affecting the financial situation of an institution like the NYT, is something to relish :) - Thanks!
LOL! I really got it right, didn't I! I have to admit, I didn't know about the Eye-Talian part, but oooooooh.
A great choice by Pres. Bush.
I see your point.
On the other hand, I'm still holding out hope that we've got two conservatives... but we shall see how the rulings go.
Laura Bush helped work her husband into the WH. She is an intelligent woman who knows a lot about politics and the issues. I have no doubt that her advice on many occasions aided the success of the President on the way up.She knows the President better than anyone else. I would hope she would be consulted.
God bless our first lady, but in this case she 'stepped in it'. Let's hope she realizes it and is more discerning in the future on the 'talking points' she accepts.
Don't worry. She will never be an "activist". Luckily we have a classy first lady. She certainly has "business" speaking out. In fact, she is in demand and currently speaking all over the country in support of her husband's policies.
Just to add a few cents to this dialogue, actually siding with both sides a bit. I don't think anyone questions the quality of the first lady and that she is a class act, and is actively in demand and speaking all over the country.
The questionable responses she gave as to why the 'right' was not in support of the prior candidate is what is on the table. I truly am in awe of our first lady and absolutely in support of her and glad that she is so polished and representing our country and/or her husband whereever asked. All that being said, she was simply 'wrong' to imply that any reasons the 'right' didn't support Myers were because of her gender. To then list her 'credentials' which were all 'gender' based was just absurd. This was a case of doing 'in support' what she was accusing those of doing that stood 'against' Myers. Not only was the accusation way off base, it was NOT likely Laura Bushes words at all. She was way off with the accusation, and further off on trying to paint Myers in a better light.
- We are united again and God is on our side.... we have too much in common not to be. Like not giving the leftist wackos the pleasure of making us split... NEVER!! - LOL
I was replying to a specific comment that a dumb poster made that Laura Bush should NEVER speak on a policy issue.
Bunch of garbage.
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.