Posted on 08/03/2004 12:09:31 PM PDT by dead
You mention Carter...Of all Presidents in post WWII America, Carter has been the most destructive to the interests of America...yes even worse than Clinton.
Hi BG. You won't get an answer. It's not a cut and paste or link kind of response.
Actually, they DO get that we would, they just don't get WHY we would. That's why the left generated that rumor that Bush may have paid for an abortion sometime in the distant past. Also why the confusion and accusations of hypocrisy when we were underwhelmed.
It's easy to sit on high and think about conservatives all day long. Analyzing them in an iltellectually divorced fashion so as not to bias your conclusions, hypothesizing about them and becoming an all around expert on them.
Problem is, without throwing yourself into WHY we act, feel and think the way we do, you can study us for 50 years without ever knowing us. In the end, you've learned nothing, and your well laid plans fall flat instead of illiciting the response you expect.
and I am going to a more worthwhile thread.
Yeppers ..
Sure you did. I quoted it. You can retract it if you want. But it seems you'd rather just run away from it.
"Kerry strikes me as smart and competent"
Excuse me, but what actions has Kerry taken, what accomplishments has he made, in the past 25 years, that make him 'competent' to be a President of the United States?!?
He's never had a real management position, never had a private sector business job (lawyer). He's not even had a single executive position in the political realm except for a brief stint as the powerless lt gov under Dukakis for 2 years ...
He hasnt even led a Senate committee, what makes him fit to lead a nation?
So, please, what evidence for the 'competence' appellation on Kerry?
Good grief.
What will he say?
That Freepers are a pack of right wing nutjobs?
Relax. When I thought he might interview me, I read all I could find on the net.
I think he is akin tp some lefties that some of us like, sometimes, Hentoff. Hitchens --uh there another?
Maybe Rick will become the third.
He'll answer me. We've gone 'round before....
Source PLEASE!!!!!
You have already proved you play fast and loose with the facts so there is no way we can take your word on this.
Why did dead even bother with this thread? Your non answers are so typical of liberals. Many here have poised good honest questions, and wanted a sincere honest reply, and you've failed to answer the majority of them. Only those questions you can link an article to, or cut and paste a reply do you respond to. What a waste of a carbon unit.
And a senator honors the constiution by fulfilling the advise and consent function of the senate in judicial appointments--which is why Republicans held up Clinton judicial opponents, no?
Can you name for us one Clinton judicial nominee that was fillibustered and required to clear a 60 vote hurdle to get a floor vote?
If memory serves me right, every single Clinton judicial nominee except one got a floor vote, and that one was withdrawn by Clinton when it was clear that the nominee wasn't going to make it out of committee.
------
Huh? The reason is because there is a Republican majority in the Senate, so Senate Democrats HAVE NO advise and consent function if they bring a vote to the floor, because any Republican who voted against an administration appointment (unless they cut a deal for a release) would be destroyed. Are you not aware of this?
That one is "pretty well confirmed."
Mr. Perlstein,
I am more interested in defending the words and literal meaning of the Constitution. "Spirit" leaves too much wiggle room. We have a pretty good process for amending the Constitution. If the Constitution is not sufficient, then we can change it through the Amendment process. This is a fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives. Courts have taken on tyrannical shades, which liberals (and their trial lawyer support) seem to embrace.
Can you please speak to this point from a liberal perspective?
Paulsy from Texas.
The management of FR has been tolerant of my opinion of Bush and the rhetoric here. (read my tagline for example)
I guess maybe it's because I don't go over the edge with personal attacks or something, I don't know.
You are probably right Miss M. I have recieved not a reply from Ricky-but in all honest he agreed to this handicap match, and my suspicions before the match have been borne out. He bit off more than he can chew.
In my opinion, almost any of us could kick his butt in a nose to nose match.
Pick your challenger, Rick Perlstein and my money is on them.
I have heard that said about WH pressure, but I have heard many things "said". Can you point to supported evidence that this happened?
Fair enough.
Perlstein's not a Kerry supporter, Tonkin. He wants Jesse Jackson Jnr to be president:
I ask you- have you ever read anything so forced, so pretentious, so infantile?
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.