Waiting for Fitzgerald - Page 198

bilmore · 10-12-2005, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by soup sandwich
I think I am finally starting to see what all the anger is about. It's not just that the right wants a conservative, rather, the right wants a conservative and a fight. The right wants to not just get their person on the SCOTUS, they want to nominate a person the left can't stand and shove it down the left's throat. Is this accurate?

For some, yeah. For most, it's like, we've been waiting for this chance for eons, it's THE most important change Bush can make, and the idea that we should take a chance that Bush (and Bush alone) "knows her heart" - that fries us. There's too much at stake to just trust him on this. This is The Big Chance, and the people who we thought of as being the best nominees would have, by definition, provoked a fight, but the fight ain't the thing - it's just a symptom.

Hank Chinaski · 10-12-2005, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
The fact that others occasionally have low-value jokey posts doesn't give value to page after page of pics cross-posted from anti-Hilary websites.

Hank has been scolded for his unfunny fringe picture. At least he's limited it.

A parable. Not infrequenly, Lyndon LaRouche drives around the streets of downtown DC in a parade of cars. They have old-fashioned megaphones on top. They have people to distribute flyers to pedestrians. They are loud. Their rhetoric is filled with invective. I've long since learned to turn up the volume on my iPod.

Sounds like you would like to be the board's conscience. Before we can submit the application to our liberal friends, we need some info. What is the highest rank you've held in the KKK?

I'm willing to bet that you've never been to aklan meeting. How do you expect the Dems to be comfortable with you?

SlaveNoMore · 10-12-2005, 02:39 PM

Quote:

soup sandwich
I think I am finally starting to see what all the anger is about. It's not just that the right wants a conservative, rather, the right wants a conservative and a fight. The right wants to not just get their person on the SCOTUS, they want to nominate a person the left can't stand and shove it down the left's throat. Is this accurate?

Um, no.

We want an intelligent conservative that is actually qualified for the job.

Why are all the people that harped on endlessly about Brown being unqualified to head up FEMA all of a sudden seem to support Bush's decision to tap an unqualified crony for SCOTUS?

Riddle me this - if Clinton had tapped Bernie Nussbaum instead of Ruth Bader Ginsberg, would the Left have been happy? Hell, he was a good friend of Bill and a White House counsel, roughly the same qualifications as Miers.

Penske_Account · 10-12-2005, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
OK.

Sounds like the question was:

"With respect to the abortion issue, would you consider yourself to be pro-choice or pro-life?"

Now, your turn.

Exactly. And "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are loaded biased terms.

Scroll down a bit and look-I am not going to take the time to parse each and every poll there. There is little more than 30% support for abortion essentially on demand, which is the NARAL and NOW line. The leaders of the demo party align with these people, at least in the Court fights. So who is out touch?

Scroll further down and look at the numbers on parental notification/consent, 70-ish-20ish in favour of state laws for notification and consent, which is one of the major fights going on now. Those two numbers alone speak volumes on how out-of-touch the feminazi controlled dimwits are.

Gattigap · 10-12-2005, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Exactly. And "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are loaded biased terms.

Scroll down a bit and look-I am not going to take the time to parse each and every poll there. There is little more than 30% support for abortion essentially on demand, which is the NARAL and NOW line. The leaders of the demo party align with these people, at least in the Court fights. So who is out touch?

Scroll further down and look at the numbers on parental notification/consent, 70-ish-20ish in favour of state laws for notification and consent, which is one of the major fights going on now. Those two numbers alone speak volumes on how out-of-touch the feminazi controlled dimwits are.

Fine as far as it goes, Penske, but that's several steps removed from what we were talking about. Don't let me stop you, though.

Oh, and if you have that poll handy for the Iraqis, that'd be great.

Secret_Agent_Man · 10-12-2005, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Sounds like you would like to be the board's conscience. Before we can submit the application to our liberal friends, we need some info. What is the highest rank you've held in the KKK?

I'm willing to bet that you've never been to aklan meeting. How do you expect the Dems to be comfortable with you?

My Hank --

Between this post and your bukkake post about Penske's mother (posted on the LWK Board!), you are indeed in rare form.

In answer to your question, Democrats are the original party of the Big Tent, and have accepted a number of non-KKK members in recent years. His antitrust posts would cause him more trouble, but Burger would be fine with us.

S_A_M

Spanky · 10-12-2005, 02:47 PM

There was some lawyer on Charlie Rose last night whose sole job is cases before the Supreme Court. He also teaches at Harvard and Stanford. Anyone see this? He said he did not think Roberts was as conservative as Rehnquist. He also did not think he would overturn Roe v. Wade.

I don't think Miers is going to vote to overturn it either. That is still just two votes to overturn it.

Penske_Account · 10-12-2005, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
The fact that others occasionally have low-value jokey posts doesn't give value to page after page of pics cross-posted from anti-Hilary websites.

Hank has been scolded for his unfunny fringe picture. At least he's limited it.

A parable. Not infrequenly, Lyndon LaRouche drives around the streets of downtown DC in a parade of cars. They have old-fashioned megaphones on top. They have people to distribute flyers to pedestrians. They are loud. Their rhetoric is filled with invective. I've long since learned to turn up the volume on my iPod.

Why, those anti-Hillary pics have a message, they are warning. Amongst other reasons, one reason not to forget the holocaust is to help us be vigilant against genocide again. Graphically reminding people of Hillary's evil is useful for similar reasons. This country doesn't need to have another day when 3000 people die because a President has neglected national security in the interests of his/her Id satisfaction over those of the national interest.

Why is Hank's fringe pic unfunny? Looks like a relevant representation to me.

Larouche? No shit, he was doing that back when you were in diapers. While he's nuts, how do know you aren't missing anything? Or this that chance outweighed by insight you gain from listening to some GreenDay tune for the 2700th time? I respect the spectrum of ideas in the market place. Why the bias?

Penske_Account · 10-12-2005, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
I can't figure out what is going on in Jeb's camp. They are putting out a lot of signals that he ain't going to run. I just can't figure out why. Maybe they think Hillary is unbeatable.

btw. The only issue is whether the Republicans can beat Hillary. I don't think there is any question she is going to be the nominee. I have seen focus groups. She is similar to W (or at least W. before Miers) in that the base loves her, the opposition loathes her and the middle does not mind her. The fact the far right hates her is a problem because it will motivate the base. However, the Dem base loves her which will motivate them and the middle America is willing to vote for her. In addition, she can move to the center without angering the base too much because their loyalty is not based on her position on the issue. A very strong asset. That is a winning combination.

I think McCain, Giuliani and Condi are the only ones that can give her a run for her money.

McCain/Jeb wins it in a walk. Spanky, thoughts?

Hank Chinaski · 10-12-2005, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
My Hank --

Between this post and your bukkake post about Penske's mother (posted on the LWK Board!), you are indeed in rare form.

In answer to your question, Democrats are the original party of the Big Tent, and have accepted a number of non-KKK members in recent years. His antitrust posts would cause him more trouble, but Burger would be fine with us.

S_A_M

If you did/could read my post, I said I doubt he is in the Klan. The point was that for a conscience you would want Klan background. Get it? Ha ha!

sgtclub · 10-12-2005, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by soup sandwich
I think I am finally starting to see what all the anger is about. It's not just that the right wants a conservative, rather, the right wants a conservative and a fight. The right wants to not just get their person on the SCOTUS, they want to nominate a person the left can't stand and shove it down the left's throat. Is this accurate?

It's not that they want a fight, it's that they want a proclamation their beliefs are now in the mainstream. Pissing off the left is just a collateral benefit.

Replaced_Texan · 10-12-2005, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Um, no.

We want an intelligent conservative that is actually qualified for the job.

Why are all the people that harped on endlessly about Brown being unqualified to head up FEMA all of a sudden seem to support Bush's decision to tap an unqualified crony for SCOTUS?

Riddle me this - if Clinton had tapped Bernie Nussbaum instead of Ruth Bader Ginsberg, would the Left have been happy? Hell, he was a good friend of Bill and a White House counsel, roughly the same qualifications as Miers.

Were I to still read and participate in this forum, I'd say that I object to her too on the same basic princple.

And that I thought that Roberts was very well qualified. But I don't post (and more importantly read) here anymore, so you'll have to imagine me posting a big two.

Penske_Account · 10-12-2005, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
For some, yeah. For most, it's like, we've been waiting for this chance for eons, it's THE most important change Bush can make, and the idea that we should take a chance that Bush (and Bush alone) "knows her heart" - that fries us. There's too much at stake to just trust him on this. This is The Big Chance, and the people who we thought of as being the best nominees would have, by definition, provoked a fight, but the fight ain't the thing - it's just a symptom.

I think some want a fight just for a fight, but there is a greater value. In the post-Bork era, the right needs to establish that a highly qualified, thoughtful, accomplished jurist with some anti-Roe history can be affirmed. If Ginsburg can get 90 plus votes, then a her ideological counterpoint should be able to get affirmed, if as qualified. And certainly Luttig, McConnel or Jones are as qualified.

Penske_Account · 10-12-2005, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Sounds like you would like to be the board's conscience. Before we can submit the application to our liberal friends, we need some info. What is the highest rank you've held in the KKK?

I'm willing to bet that you've never been to aklan meeting. How do you expect the Dems to be comfortable with you?

I have been to more Moveon.org rallies than all of the libs here combined. They are the Howard Dean base of the left, and while I don't agree or like much of what they say, I am willing to open my mind to it. Too bad there is little reciprocity to the ideas of the majoritarian right from those on the left. Lots of bias though.

soup sandwich · 10-12-2005, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Riddle me this - if Clinton had tapped Bernie Nussbaum instead of Ruth Bader Ginsberg, would the Left have been happy? Hell, he was a good friend of Bill and a White House counsel, roughly the same qualifications as Miers.

Personally, I would have trusted that Bill knew what he was doing and been fine with it. I also tend to think that the left would not be screeching this loud.