Posted on 10/13/2013 5:09:41 AM PDT by Alas Babylon!
Whoops, LOL!!!
That should have been: "Bob never took responsibility for his lie, and his so called objectivity was as bad as Dan Rather's, but Bob still kept his job."
That is what is called a Freudian slip. True, both Schieffer and Rather are asses!
Kabar-they are busy down at the memorials talking to the people who are dumping the barrycades in front of the white house. I suspect they will never to invited on to any of the talk shows again.
Well, RATs either vote as they're told, or they're shown the door.
Well, so far:
Trains have left stations, ships have sailed, and now, genies are out of bottles.
And the dogs wont hunt :):)
I was mostly listening, not watching. Newt was cool as usual, poo pooing the LSM’s angst about the debt deadline, fiscal cliff, gun-to-the-head nonsense which agitated old Bob and the WSJ gal backed Newt up pretty much. Newt is a deadly debater.
Thanks!
My caption was:
“Linda, let me introduce you to my little friend I like to call ‘Speaker Boehner’”.
I don’t know what they uncovered or what they didn’t. But this topic came up about a year or year and a half ago to the best of my knowledge. It may have been around longer but i didn’t hear about it.
Thanks for your comment.
My point was simply the vetting of a SCOTUS candidate would be EXTREMELY thorough and its’ highly unlikely the illegal status of his two kids wold have been overlooked.
Considering Bush is a liberal, big govt RINO and (purposefully?) paved the way for obamatollah, my guess he had no problem with illegal alien kids because he’s a “compassionate conservative” & amnesty lovin’ failure.
No problem. To tell you the truth I’m gonna have to look all this up. I’m getting very curious.What you say makes a lot of sense.
Somehow I get the idea that Bush may well have depended on others to do his research and quite possibly was not aware. But I’m gonna look into it a little and see what I find.
(CBS News) Chief Justice John Roberts initially sided with the Supreme Court's four conservative justices to strike down the heart of President Obama's health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, but later changed his position and formed an alliance with liberals to uphold the bulk of the law, according to two sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations.
Roberts then withstood a month-long, desperate campaign to bring him back to his original position, the sources said. Ironically, Justice Anthony Kennedy - believed by many conservatives to be the justice most likely to defect and vote for the law - led the effort to try to bring Roberts back to the fold.
"He was relentless," one source said of Kennedy's efforts. "He was very engaged in this." But this time, Roberts held firm. And so the conservatives handed him their own message which, as one justice put it, essentially translated into, "You're on your own."
The conservatives refused to join any aspect of his opinion, including sections with which they agreed, such as his analysis imposing limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause, the sources said. Instead, the four joined forces and crafted a highly unusual, unsigned joint dissent. They deliberately ignored Roberts' decision, the sources said, as if they were no longer even willing to engage with him in debate.
Kennedy who is often the swing vote and not a person conservatives on the court could count on was really pissed,read it numerous times. Kennedy actually spent a month trying to get Roberts to come to his senses. He didn't/wouldn't.
Its not much a of a stretch to infer that outside issues were persuading him to throw the case schill for obamacare and cave to our side. Its a pretty safe assumption that this is all due to his mishandling of the adoption of his kids and the consequential bribery on the part of the regime-- little new for them.
The other four supremes who were against oking obamcare uncharacteristically dissed Roberts about as strong and hard as they could by not agreeing with him and indeed ignoring his entire brief for o-care being a legal tax.
Evidently in the scotus world this is very unusual at best for scotus members.
On the vetting angle numerous people voiced their disgust at Roberts caving. Seems Alberto Gonzales,Bushs' AG, may have been one of the key players in the vetting.He basically says little appears surprised,who knows what they uncovered or didn't,seems likely they didn't vette properly.
Gonzales also had no opinion on Eric Holder also a bad sign he was told the STFU. John Yoo a big legal player from Ca. called it "a catastrophic vetting failure in 2005",Michale Savage blames it on Roberts' epilepsy meds on and on it goes.
...........................
One of the pieces de resistance is a letter sent to the NYT by Hugh Hewitt questioning their "dropped" investigation,or non-investigation,into Roberts' adoption of two blond/blue eyed kids ostensibly from Central America. Seems the times/slimes probably figured out what was going on and since they saw a cluster of unending legal BS coming their way they simply backed off and pretended they didn't want to violate the privacy concerns of adoption.
Yeah right!! This is the NYT that routinely lets out info/intel helpful to terrorists and they are all of a sudden concerned about adoptive rights? BS!! They saw a legal minefield and ran away as fast as their chickensh_T legs would carry them
. ..................
Here's a clip of one of many pieces on the topic of Roberts' and his "Hispanic kids": In 2000 Justice Roberts and his wife Jane adopted two children. Initially it was apparent that the adoptions were "from a Latin American country", but over time it has become apparent that the adopted children were not Latin American, but were Irish.
Why this matters will become evident. In 2005 the NY Times began investigating Roberts life as a matter of his nomination to the Supreme Court by George Bush. The Times was shortly accused of trying to unseal the adoption papers and intending to violate the anonymity of the adoption process... however there is more to the story.
Drudge did an article in 2005 http://patterico.com/2005/08/04/drudge-says-new-york-times-is-inves...
The NEW YORK TIMES is looking into the adoption records of the children of Supreme Court Nominee John G. Roberts, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. The TIMES has investigative reporter Glen Justice hot on the case to investigate the status of adoption records of Judge Roberts’ two young children, Josie age 5 and Jack age 4, a top source reveals. Judge Roberts and his wife Jane adopted the children when they each were infants. Both children were adopted from Latin America. A TIMES insider claims the look into the adoption papers are part of the paper’s “standard background check.”
Most roads on this lead to blacked out pages or site under maintenance or whatever,the fix is definitely in. If you want a quick summary it looks like failed vetting and a bribed scotus judge gave us obamcare as a legal tax.
It was roast chicken no photo this time will try to do better
Thanks I can see it in my mind’s eye, also savor the delicious aroma. Yum!
you been thow’n some gold spikes in the rail lately !
Thus we have obamcare as a tax even though Roberts’ closest ally on the Supreme Court tried for a month to get him to change his mind. when its your kids you get stupid and Roberts was no exception.
Since when can one person be taxed while his neighbor is not as well as saying the House and Senate workers are exempt from taxes?
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.