To: new yorker 77
Using his tried-and-true playbook, President Bush first controlled the process, then set the criteria for approval, and then controlled the semantics.I wish they'd get their story straight--Is Bush a witless moron or an evil genius?
To: new yorker 77
There is only one solution for their voters.
Join the GREEN party!
3 posted on
02/07/2006 2:44:13 PM PST by
BenLurkin
(O beautiful for patriot dream - that sees beyond the years)
To: new yorker 77
I love the sound of Leftist Hysteria. Welcome to permanent minority party status Losers.
4 posted on
02/07/2006 2:44:56 PM PST by
MNJohnnie
("Vote Democrat-We are the party of reactionary inertia".)
To: new yorker 77
First, as they almost always have done for the past 26 years, Republicans have again outmaneuvered the Democrats. And that is what is really important... We just did it again, Malcolm J. Gross. You were "maneuvered" into writing this piece - and the backlash from it will help us elect another President in a few short years. Thanks again, and keep an eye out for black helicopters.
8 posted on
02/07/2006 2:50:39 PM PST by
GOPJ
(NFL Super Bowl halftime - When groupies are rehearsed to look star-stuck, the thrill is gone.)
To: new yorker 77
I just learned that the press is in bed with George Bush and his administration. LOL Who is this guy Gross?
12 posted on
02/07/2006 2:53:46 PM PST by
jazusamo
(A Progressive is only a Socialist in a transparent disguise.)
To: new yorker 77
That control was so complete Yeaaaah! I can see Bush controlling puppets KenEddy and Scummmer, very clevvver!
To: new yorker 77
What are we to make of it? I'd go with the pterodactyl. The hat and broach are so passe.
14 posted on
02/07/2006 2:58:48 PM PST by
The_Victor
(If all I want is a warm feeling, I should just wet my pants.)
To: new yorker 77
" There was a time when Senate committees had lawyers who did the questioning and knew how to do it. The object of questioning in a legal hearing, which this was supposed to be, is not to draw attention to the question or questioner, but to the answer. Here, we got no answers and only more tedious monologues from committee members."
Do you think he was talking about Senator Biden here?
15 posted on
02/07/2006 2:59:53 PM PST by
adgirl
To: new yorker 77
Yep, I agree you were out smarted and then out voted. I can't help it if you were dumb and out numbered. I might suggest that you participate more fully in affirmative action.
16 posted on
02/07/2006 3:03:35 PM PST by
jec41
(Screaming Eagle)
To: new yorker 77
The Senate vote is the only vote we, the people, get on who is a Supreme Court justice.
I am still puzzling over this assertion. I guess this makes sense if you think Bush 'stole' the elections.. although trying to discern the thought processes of a moonbat is not for the light hearted =)
To: new yorker 77
Man, can this guy twist concepts or what?
Ask anyone for his or her idea of a judge and you are almost certain to get the word ''conservative'' in the first sentence of the definition.
Judge Ginsburg. Hmmm ... no, I can't quite bring myself to put "conservative" next to her name.
Judge Alito may have a fine record, but it is not conservative. His whole legal career has been about advocating radical change in established precedents and accepted legal philosophies.
Which were liberal departures from accepted conservative constitutional jurisprudence. So does undoing liberalism make you a radical?
19 posted on
02/07/2006 3:08:29 PM PST by
dirtboy
(I'm fat, I sleep most of the winter and I saw my shadow yesterday. Does that make me a groundhog?)
To: new yorker 77
I see that Mal Gross bemoans that the DemoRat Senators were incompetent in their questioning of Justice Alito. Maybe the Rats could use some patriotic, America loving, hard working, sober, moral, ethical, intelligent, humble and pleasant Senators that would ask questions for the answers.
But then, they would to a man, vote to confirm Justice Alito. And they wouldn't be DemoRats as well.
21 posted on
02/07/2006 3:10:04 PM PST by
Navy Patriot
(At times like this, it is a pleasure to support Free Republic.)
To: new yorker 77
Judge Alito may have a fine record, but it is not conservative. His whole legal career has been about advocating radical change in established precedents and accepted legal philosophies.Just that statement. No examples, no explanation. And Liberals wonder why we don't find them persuasive????
To: new yorker 77
The Senate vote is the only vote we, the people, get on who is a Supreme Court justice. Pretending the above is true (the senate is the people's house!?), then "we, the people" voted to confirm.
To: new yorker 77
First, as they almost always have done for the past 26 years, Republicans have again outmaneuvered the Democrats. And that is what is really important to both sides, not whether the judge deserves the position. Justice Judge Bork disagrees with that statement.
Step 2. Find a eminently qualified judge so that neither right nor left can complain about his skills.
Step 3. Train that judge on how to keep cool under fire from idiots (insert 80s movie training montage here).
Step 4. Let Fat Ted mumble in opposition and John Kerry yodel a call for filibuster.
Step 5. Rent a spine for the Republicans in the senate.
26 posted on
02/07/2006 3:25:55 PM PST by
KarlInOhio
(During wartime, some whistles should not be blown. - Orson Scott Card)
To: new yorker 77
To libs, its all about process. They can't address the substance of their own views. Rush had a liberal caller from Pennslyvania on today's show and the liberal ended up insulting Rush instead of telling people what he really thought. Bottom line is, you libs not only lack class, you're bullies and you're cowards. You will never see yourself the way other people see you and until you understand what's wrong with you, you will never regain others' respect. Just keep up with the rage and hate. Like Yogi Berra said, its
deja vu all over again.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
27 posted on
02/07/2006 3:30:30 PM PST by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: new yorker 77
advocating radical change in established precedents and accepted legal philosophies.That means he doesn't go along with current fads like citing Zimbabwe or Haiti precedents for suporting something the Constitution does not support.
28 posted on
02/07/2006 3:37:25 PM PST by
arthurus
(Better to fight them OVER THERE than over here.)
To: new yorker 77
30 posted on
02/07/2006 3:52:21 PM PST by
Bubba_Leroy
(What did Rather know and when did he know it?)
To: new yorker 77
The Senate vote is the only vote we, the people, get on who is a Supreme Court justice. That's funny, I seem to remember voting in a Presidential election last year.
Elections have consequences.
32 posted on
02/07/2006 3:54:45 PM PST by
Bubba_Leroy
(What did Rather know and when did he know it?)
To: new yorker 77
Using his tried-and-true playbook, President Bush first controlled the process, then set the criteria for approval, and then controlled the semantics. Yes, that 'playbook' would be the US Constitution, which empowers the President to employ all of these tools in the process.
The latter was accomplished, as always, at the start, when Judge Alito was described as a ''conservative.'' The media immediately bought the word and the Democrats were boxed into opposing a conservative judge.
Is it our fault that Dems are just plain dumb and have no long term rationale other than to simply oppose everything termed 'conservative'? Huh, Malcolm ???
Ask anyone for his or her idea of a judge and you are almost certain to get the word ''conservative'' in the first sentence of the definition. ''As sober as a judge,'' the old saying goes.
Finally said something useful, ehh ?
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson