Democrats demanding to know who Alito had a conversation with in this 1950's photo.
And did this conversation have anything to do with Roe V. Wade
(yes, I know roe wasn't decided until 1973, it's meant to be a joke.)
Posted on 10/31/2005 3:12:28 AM PST by kcvl
Per Fox News...
You seem to be going around in circles. Now you are comparing Goldwater to McCain. Initially, you made the statement that JFK was more conservative than GWB, which is patently false. JFK's New Frontier became LBJ's Great Society. I never said or suggested that McCain was more conservative than Goldwater.
I would note however, that Goldwater had some views on social issues that might be considered liberal, e.g., gays in the military, his statement in 1989 that the GOP had been taken over by a bunch of kooks, i.e., the religious right, and his urging that Republicans lay off Clinton over Whitewater. In fact, in 1996 Goldwater told Bob Dole, who mounted his presidential campaign with less than ecstatic support from hard-line conservatives, "We're the new liberals of the Republican Party. Can you imagine that?"
That is a logical statement on the face of it. Afghanistan crippled the Soviet Empire, however. Not to mention, Saddam had a huge army, faced up by what? Three divisions? That's not a major achievement? Kosovo was a bombing raid, nothing more. I'm talking about an actual war. We are in a world war. I dubbed it World War III. Others call it World War IV. Regardless, no president has ever had so much success with such finesse.
You are comparing apples and oranges. Removing the Taliban from Afghanistan or Saddam from Iraq is not like fighting the Wehrmacht. Saddam's army was easily defeated during Desert Storm a decade earlier. They were surrendering to reporters. The technological and command-in-control edge the US has over Iraq made it like shooting fish in a barrel. The outcome was never in doubt. Your contention that Bush is our greatest wartime President is just simple nonsense.
Yeah, tell that to the Soviets. You need to develop some historical perspective. The fact we didn't have to conquer Afghanistan is not exactly a mark against a wartime president. Finesse.
The Soviets lost in Afghanistan the same way we lost in Vietnam. The public will and support was lost in a struggle that was draining resources, men and materiel. The US had a lot to do with the Soviet loss in Afghanistan. We supplied weapons such as Stinger missiles to knock out Soviet helicopters and money and training to foreign jihadists who traveled to Afghanistan to fight alongside the resistance. In Vietnam, the Soviets and Chinese supplied weapons and trained personnel to the North to fight against us. Neither the Soviets or ourselves were ever defeated in any significant military engagement with the enemy.
Gee, I wonder how many lives have been lost from the unholy war of Islam?
How many? Don'tyou know?
I said nothing about an unknown group. Are you trying to make me sound like a nut? I think you are. Otherwise, your lack of understanding is making me consider repeating my posts. And life is too short. But assuming you are as dense as you are pretending to be:
You said, "At the same time, we need to look hard at how the 2000 primary was hyjacked [sic], or the same thing will happen in 2008. But who realizes we were hyjacked [sic]?" My question was pretty straightforward. Who hijacked the 2000 primary?
I can accept that illustration. In fact, I'll use it.
"You seem to be going around in circles. Now you are comparing Goldwater to McCain."
That was actually a way of advancing the discussion. If anyone is trying to create circles here, it's not me. You said Goldwater would be called a moderate today. McCain is an example of a modern 'moderate'. Therefore, by your logic, we should compare McCain to Goldwater to see if you are correct.
"Initially, you made the statement that JFK was more conservative than GWB, which is patently false. JFK's New Frontier became LBJ's Great Society."
Who is the greatest funder on the War on Poverty?
1. JFK?
2. Johnson?
3. Bush?
The Correct answer is Bush. He is, fiscally speaking, the greatest 'warrior' against poverty than any other president in US history. I'd call that more liberal than JFK.
As for the post-60s Goldwater, that isn't what I was referring to. He did seem to change. I can understand the confusion there. Just like Bush, Goldwater kept a lot of his thoughts close to the vest.
"You are comparing apples and oranges."
Actually I could. It depends on the standard. Does the apple weigh more than the orange? According to the standard of more terroritory, more liberated, fewer losses, and excluding mere bombing raids, no one can boast they did better in all those categories than Bush. That's an indication of finesse. Any president can tell a bunch of guys to storm a beach head. That shouldn't impress anyone.
When the standard is, greatest number of enemies killed, being caught in a war not prepared for, leading troops into slaughter houses, yeah, FDR beats him, but it wasn't what I call a smashing success the way he did it. D-Day, Battle of the Bulge, Iwo Jima, those were won by MEN despite the failings of their leaders. MacArthur and Patton had to scheme their way into victory around the failings of their 'superiors'.
"The technological and command-in-control edge the US has over Iraq made it like shooting fish in a barrel. The outcome was never in doubt. Your contention that Bush is our greatest wartime President is just simple nonsense."
You are correct. Great would be too strong a word. 'Most successful' is what I always try to say, because the greatness of today's military has a whole lot to do with Weinburger and Reagan. If I said, 'greatest', I apologize.
"The Soviets lost in Afghanistan the same way we lost in Vietnam."
Yep. And people thought Bush was crazy to try, didn't they? He outfoxed them.
"Gee, I wonder how many lives have been lost from the unholy war of Islam? How many? Don'tyou know?"
I know enough to know that radical Islam has killed tens of millions of people, beyond any mortal's ability to count. It is well-entrenched. You want to diminish it's significance, but it is a powerful, cunning enemy we face. And many of it's followers are as deadly as the Kamazazis of WWII.
First off, you cobbled the election with the primary with feigned ignorance. You also tried to make me sound like a nutcase rambling about some conspiracy.
Do you know what 'front loaded' means? We had a front loaded primary in 2000. Now why would that be? It was publicly reported. It is a fact. It was designed to favor a 'particular kind' of candidate, the kind that is less good at personal campaign skills and has a fatter rolodex. I imagine they are planning something similar for 2008. That may not bother you, but it bothers the heck out of me.
Yeah, you may think I don't know much, that I'm just some rambling dufus, based on your 'Holiday Inn' jibe. Whatever man. Life is too short. I'm beginning to think you're a waste of my time.
The whole "who replaces who" debate is aimed at preservation of status quo.
Personally, I think it's a distracting argument. Conservatives should be striving for a SCOTUS with 9 Scalia/Thomas/Rhenquist style Justices.
Democrats demanding to know who Alito had a conversation with in this 1950's photo.
And did this conversation have anything to do with Roe V. Wade
(yes, I know roe wasn't decided until 1973, it's meant to be a joke.)
LMAO!
One can see right here that you're getting caught up in the Left's moral-equivalency game. The difference between advocating a withdrawal and using a parliamentary maneuver to actually block a confirmation vote is so obvious to most people as to not need any explanation at all.
Personally as far as I'm concerned, the Democrats can advocate that Bush withdraw Alito all they want. If they limit their "forcing" to that, I doubt very many conservatives will have an issue with that.
Pretty much that way.
Roberts was named to replace O'Connor. Since Roberts is an unknown and possibly a moderate, this is somewhat more digestible, although it still outrages many of us Bush did not choose a well known conservative. When Rehnquist died AFTER Roberts was nominated, that created a second opening now filled by the Alito nomination.
Just because Bush cowardly avoided a fight by not promoting Scalia to Chief Justice and took the easy way out by promoting Roberts to Chief Justice does not take away from the fact that ROBERTS WAS INITIALLY nominated to REPLACE O'CONNOR.
O'Connor was a liberal so Roberts may "possibly be more to the right" than O'Connor, but until we know, we have to assume he will be "O'Connor like".
The MSM is throwing fuel on the fire by saying that Alito is replacing O'Connor, just because she is hanging around a while longer. If they would accurately say that Alito is replacing Rehnquist, their fight would have less steam.
Like a true liberal, O'Connor has done the nation a bad service by not retiring as she had planned to. If she would have retired as announced, then Alito would more clearly be replacing Rehnquist, as he actually is anyway.
Roberts for O'Connor.........pretty equal. No change on the court.
Alito for Rehnquist..........pretty equal. No change on the court.
In truth, the court is not be changed. However, this false notion that the press and Bush is giving that "Alito is replacing O'Connor" gives the FALSE IMPRESSION that the court would shift to the right, when the TRUTH is the court is not being changed at all. Alito is the 2nd nominee to replace the 2nd opening (Rehnquist).
Technically you are right,
Rather convoluted logic. My comment about Goldwater was in response to your ridiculous assertion that a 60s moderate would be "called extreme right wing today." I asked the rhetorical question, "What would Goldwater be considered today? Probably a moderate. LOL." Obviously, you didn't get the point. I grew up in the 60s and understand what was the political reality. Goldwater lost in a landslide. The Dems had commanding margins in both houses of Congress. The prevailing ethos was do whatever feels good. Drugs, sex, and anti-war/anti-military sentiment were prevalent. The Conservatives were a distinct minority politically.
Who is the greatest funder on the War on Poverty? 1. JFK? 2. Johnson? 3. Bush?
First, the War on Poverty was an LBJ initiated program, so that rules out JFK. Making poverty a national concern set in motion a series of bills and acts, creating programs such as Head Start, food stamps, work study, Medicare and Medicaid, which are still with us today.
Second, it depends on how you measure the amount of funds spend based on inflation adjusted dollars. And what programs you include in the total. Bush inherited most of the programs with the prescription drug benefit being the major exception.
During the Johnson years the percentage growth of federal non-defense spending was 13.04%, 12.60%, 11.81% and 5.13% respectively. Those four years average a growth rate of 10.65%. Bush 43 is certainly less than that. So my final answer of the three is LBJ. Please provide your figures.
Actually I could. It depends on the standard. Does the apple weigh more than the orange? According to the standard of more terroritory, more liberated, fewer losses, and excluding mere bombing raids, no one can boast they did better in all those categories than Bush. That's an indication of finesse. Any president can tell a bunch of guys to storm a beach head. That shouldn't impress anyone.
Pardon me, but your ignorance is showing.
More territory - No comparison. Roosevelt/Truman: Try Europe, North Africa, China, Japan, Southeast Asia, not to mention the Soviet Union, which we supplied and assisted.
More liberated - No comparison. Roosevelt/Truman. See the list above. Probably close to a billion people.
fewer losses - Reagan in Panama and Grenada. Clinton in Haiti and Bosinia/Kosovo. McKinley in Spanish-American War. Bush 41 in the Gulf War.
It has nothing to do with finesse, rather superior technology and war fighting capabilities. They provide a force multiplier effect, which enables smaller numbers to be a numerically superior force. It also has to do with the military capabilities of the enemy you are fighting.
When the standard is, greatest number of enemies killed, being caught in a war not prepared for, leading troops into slaughter houses, yeah, FDR beats him, but it wasn't what I call a smashing success the way he did it. D-Day, Battle of the Bulge, Iwo Jima, those were won by MEN despite the failings of their leaders. MacArthur and Patton had to scheme their way into victory around the failings of their 'superiors'.
Now you are descending into the inane and fantasy land. Roosevelt did not direct the strategical and tactical operations in winning WWII. Our military leaders did. They also fought the war with the weapons they had. They did not have smart bombs, jet aircraft, cluster bombs, etc. If you know anything about WWII, I would not be touting MacArthur too much.
I know enough to know that radical Islam has killed tens of millions of people, beyond any mortal's ability to count. It is well-entrenched. You want to diminish it's significance, but it is a powerful, cunning enemy we face. And many of it's followers are as deadly as the Kamazazis of WWII.
Provide some specifics. The same could be said for Communism and Christianity. We are battling militant, fundamentalist Islam, a real threat, but a distinct minority.
Do you know what 'front loaded' means? We had a front loaded primary in 2000. Now why would that be? It was publicly reported. It is a fact. It was designed to favor a 'particular kind' of candidate, the kind that is less good at personal campaign skills and has a fatter rolodex. I imagine they are planning something similar for 2008. That may not bother you, but it bothers the heck out of me.
So who are the ones cooking up front loaded primaries? You make it sound so sinister. Who are the they who "are planning something similar for 2008?"
Yeah, you may think I don't know much, that I'm just some rambling dufus, based on your 'Holiday Inn' jibe.
You are remarkably perceptive.
Whatever man. Life is too short. I'm beginning to think you're a waste of my time.
I have already reached a similar conclusion.
How cute...and how funny :)
"Alito is replacing O'Connor" is not a communist plot.
"Alito is replacing O'Connor" is a demonstrable fact.
So let me guess...
That makes you a "True Conservative"??
Where have I heard that BS before....
This is the same thing as a double switch in baseball. Roberts was slated to replace O'Conner which means that Robert is most likely moderate.
The Senate is already gearing up to fight this as they are claiming that Alito is far to the right of O'Conner. This is where Bush's "strategery" may really hurt us, because Roberts is most likely far to the left of Rhenquist.
The end result is that the court may actually move to the Left since Bush chose to avoid a confirmation hearing for moving Scalia to the chief justice slot.
You really have to take the two nominations and retiring justices as a group, rather than one by one.
The democratic strategy is already in full force to say that O'Conner was a refreshing moderate on the court and that Bush is now replacing her with a ideologue that will upset the balance of the court and the country.
Of course what they don't say is that the court was already moved to the left somewhat when Roberts replaced Rhenquist.
I totally agree, but it is an argument that the Democrats and the MSM are going to pound home to the people 24/7. This all would have been avoided if we could compare Alito to Rhenquist and Roberts to O'Conner.
In a double switch in baseball, two guys come off at the same time, and their replacements go on at that same time.
Alito is replacing O'Connor. Roberts has already replaced Rehnquist. Only through suspension of reality can you describe these events any other way.
Don't be absurd.
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.