Replies

The only thing thats laughable are your endless attempts at intelligence. First you throw up a total distortion about President Bushes possible SC nominees. Then after I point out, your misstatements and distortions and make the required corrections, you then find fault with the truth once again. All your constant whining and carping, has nothing to do with logic and rationale. Your rhetoric is always punctuated with the thoughts of an arrogant social misfit and your understanding of American politics is woefully inadequate for discussion/debate purposes. You're a one dimensional player.

This is hilarious!!! It is so substantive of your character. I didn't expect anything better from someone who feeds on what is being fed by the Bush White House. You had nothing better to say when I pointed out your puny knowledge regarding what centered around the Souter nomination. When you develop some basic courtesies, call up Joe Biden's office. He loves to talk about the Souter nomination, and he will tell you everything you don't know. As far as my qualifications are concerned, we will discuss it when you get to my level. Until then, go play with your red and green balls with President Bush. And, who are you calling woefully inqdequate? I see that you mastered your wife's complaints against you. Lol! Go sit in the corner and dream about Bush.

>>>I didn't expect anything better from someone who feeds on what is being fed by the Bush White House.

As usual, you're confused. President Bush isn't about to seek out your opinion for his SC nominees. LMAO And actually the list didn't come from the WH, it came from an outside source, if that really matters to you. Don't try and fool anyone, no matter who Bush may nominate, you'll be against his picks, for one reason or another.

I don't give a rats ass, what you discussed with "colorado tanker" in your post at RE:#577. I took exception to an outrageous remark you slipped in and tried to pass off as the truth.

In that remark you said the following:
But, it is a mute point, because Bush Jr will not be sending conservative justices to the Senate.

This remark shows how intellectually lazy you are and I called it for what it was, "... a bold face lie!"

I then proceeded to lay out the facts and clear the air concerning this distortion you presented. I gave you concrete evidence of President Bushes actual political stance, on who he might consider for his nominees to the Supreme Court (RE:#592). I then followed it up with a list of nominees (RE:#601) that appeared in, "Jurist: The Legal Education Network" in early 2001.

You also said the following at RE:#577, "The solid conservative justices in this country are the likes of Luttig, Posner, Easterbrook, et. al. I can bet with you right now, they won't be nominated, nor anyone who closely resembles them".

Again, this simply isn't the truth. As President Bush stated on MTP, he would consider nominees who are in the mold of Antoin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. And if you look at the latest list of possible Bush nominees to the USSC, you find Luttig, Easterbrook and Posner.

In the future, get you facts straight. Better yet, just shut up!