Skip to comments.
Full text of Byrd's speech (Sheets finally makes some sense!)
Posted on 01/26/2006 4:30:36 PM PST by Tarkin
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-70 next last
I really don't like Sheets (also known in some circles as King of Pork), but this speech is worth reading.
1
posted on
01/26/2006 4:30:39 PM PST
by
Tarkin
To: Tarkin
Sheets finally makes some sense! No sheet?! (Ok. So it was a gimmee.)
To: Tarkin
So Charlie Manson quotes the Bible once in awhile.....
To: Tarkin
He was fantastic today. It made me think that is what the Senate was like 200 years ago (was he a Senator 200 years ago?).
4
posted on
01/26/2006 4:34:54 PM PST
by
msnimje
(http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/shared-blogs/ajc/luckovich/index.html . FREEP THIS HOURLY!)
To: Tarkin
But my considered judgment from his record, from his answers to my questions, and from his obvious intelligence and sincerity, leads me to believe him to be an honorable man, who loves his country, loves his Constitution, and will give of his best. Can we really ask for more?If he personally hung each member of DU by the neck until dead, he still couldn't make them madder than this statement will.
5
posted on
01/26/2006 4:35:33 PM PST
by
dead
(I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
To: Tarkin
The Framers presumably had something better in mind when they vested the Senate with the authority to confirm judges of the Supreme Court. In fact, we know they did. In 1789, Roger Sherman of Connecticut defended the role of the Senate in confirming Presidential appointments. He wrote, It appears to me that the senate is the most important branch in the government. . . . The Executive magistrate is to execute the laws. The Senate, being a branch of the legislature, will naturally incline to have them duly executed and, therefore, will advise to such appointments as will best attain that end. Alexander Hamilton also had high hopes for the Senates ability to render its advice and consent function. He proclaimed, It is not easy to conceive a plan better calculated than this to promote a judicious choice of men for filling the offices of the Union.
That of course was when the Senate was selected by legislatures rather than popular vote.
6
posted on
01/26/2006 4:36:07 PM PST
by
untenured
(http://futureuncertain.blogspot.com)
To: msnimje
was he a Senator 200 years ago? Of course. :-)
7
posted on
01/26/2006 4:36:49 PM PST
by
Tarkin
(Impeach Justice Ginsburg)
To: Tarkin
The skinny is that sheets is in a tough race and he needs to appear somewhat conservative as well as liberal, kind of an old guy trying to triangulate.He is older than dirt as well!
8
posted on
01/26/2006 4:36:54 PM PST
by
rodguy911
(Support the New Media and fr.)
To: Tarkin
"Broken Clock" theory at work?
9
posted on
01/26/2006 4:36:55 PM PST
by
xcamel
(Exposing clandestine operations is treason. 13 knots make a noose.)
To: Tarkin
Yes.
It is a good speech.
I agree with Byrd here.
10
posted on
01/26/2006 4:37:12 PM PST
by
Vicomte13
(Et alors?)
To: Tarkin
Even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while.
11
posted on
01/26/2006 4:38:10 PM PST
by
Past Your Eyes
(You knew the job was dangerous when you took it.)
To: Past Your Eyes
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
To: Tarkin
I normally disagree, and even laugh at Senator Byrd almost all of the time, but I must say this was a brilliant speech. He was spot on.
13
posted on
01/26/2006 4:41:41 PM PST
by
KoRn
To: Tarkin
Now even the Democrats will realize that he has been senile for the last 40 years!
14
posted on
01/26/2006 4:43:46 PM PST
by
USMA '71
To: msnimje
I think President John Adams appointed him.
15
posted on
01/26/2006 4:44:23 PM PST
by
se_ohio_young_conservative
(God makes us strong for alittle while so that we can protect the weak)
To: Tarkin
"Full text of Byrd's speech (Sheets finally makes some sense!)" The only reason that "sheets" makes any sense at all is that there is a Republican challenging him for his Senatorial seat. There is no other reason, period.
16
posted on
01/26/2006 4:45:34 PM PST
by
davisfh
To: se_ohio_young_conservative
17
posted on
01/26/2006 4:45:40 PM PST
by
jackv
(just shakin' my head)
To: EveningStar
"And let me be clear, I mean no criticism of the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee or any particular member of the Committee."
You don't have to, we already know who the jokers are.
18
posted on
01/26/2006 4:45:52 PM PST
by
SAMS
(Nobody loves a soldier until the enemy is at the gate; Army Wife & Marine Mom)
To: msnimje
(was he a Senator 200 years ago?).Why yes, yes he was, but remember he took time out to fight for both sides in The War Between the States...
19
posted on
01/26/2006 4:46:36 PM PST
by
tubebender
(Always remember that you're unique. Just like everyone else...)
To: msnimje
"was he a Senator 200 years ago?"
Not him. Strom Thurmond was.
20
posted on
01/26/2006 4:48:22 PM PST
by
GSlob
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-70 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson