:kekeke:
"He's the most brilliant man I've ever known."
Earthlings 1, Bootlickers 0.
Printable View
:kekeke:
"He's the most brilliant man I've ever known."
Earthlings 1, Bootlickers 0.
I just heard on the radio she withdrew her nomination.
With everyone getting indited soon, it seems moot.
Excellent news.
Now if only we could withdraw President Bush's presidency.
That was tried with President Clinton and didn't work. I don't see Bush getting impeached while he's in office.Quote:
Originally Posted by DangerousK
After his terms have expired and we've a new president I can honestly see a slew of litigation against him.
Yeah!
I am really happy about this one. Good news to wake up to.
She was a decent candidate, but if there are more people like Roberts out there I'd rather see them get the job. No big deal, life goes on.
I think this is awesome news.
The liberals that are happy about this know nothing about the situation other than the fact that she was nominated by a Republican president - you guys would be better off with Miers.
Let's hope he nominates a Conservative.
Damn it...they had been talking about her possibly withdrawing for a little while now. :annoyed:
Quit smoking Bill O'Reilly's dingleberries shitbrick.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins
This President is knee deep in shit right now. He could nominate the ghost of Abraham Lincoln right now and get shat upon from a great height.
If this is what he pulled out of the bag after John Roberts, he obviously doesn't have shit to pick from. He thought he could sneak by with a bootlicking old hag who'd never even been a judge. If the indictments drop today or tomorrow as well, GWB ain't gonna have much clout to push ANYONE through.
It's about finding someone qualified, champ. Something this administration has proven it doesn't excel at.
With this candidate, a good majority of the opposition he faced was from his own political base. Does it not stand to reason that if he chose someone who was much more openly conservative (farther right wing) that he'd be able to gain the necessary support? I do think he'll have to give it some time, though. He needs to spend more time and effort appealing to his base if he wants to be successful at pushing legislation and candidates through.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loopz
I don't think he has a chance now. Bush is fucking up!Quote:
Originally Posted by melchia
Actually, the strategy of laying low, letting things die down, and then restrengthening political base is a well proven political maneuver. Typically, it works when done correctly.Quote:
Originally Posted by ki_atsushi
Yeah I know, I just wanted to say that Bush is fucking up!Quote:
Originally Posted by melchia
Why what's Bill O'Reilly saying? I haven't has a chance to listen to any political talk radio at work at all for the past few weeks, I've found a way to listen to looped Stern so I've been listening to that to pass time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loopz
Is O'Reilly supporting Miers? I'm certainly not. I'm glad she withdrew.
Meirs was great appointment for the left. Wonder why the hardcore Conservatives (as in not the pandering Republicans, the actual Conservatives) were up in arms about this nomination? They were claiming "She's not qualified enough!!!" (just like the liberal portion that wanted her to get struck down to make Bush look even worse) but that was just a smoke screen. She supposedly donated money to Al Gore's campaign, she has flipped flopped on the abortion issue, and she has strong left-leaning tendencies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loopz
The most likely reason she withdrew is due to the lack of Conservative support and because of it she knew she wasn't going to fly. I believe if she had made it through the court would have remained largely the same, with a Conservative replacing a Conservative and a pseudo-liberal replacing a pseudo-liberal.
She is not a conservative - she would have been an O'Connor had she made it on the bench. If he appoints another Roberts type, liberals will wish they could have Miers. Why do you think Boriqua was glad (I remember him saying "I'll take what I can get) she was appointed and I really wish she hadn't been? She was a Bush buddy, so while this may be a Republican failure it will likely end up being a Conservative victory. There is an enormous difference between Conservatives and Republicans these days - keep that in mind. Roberts is [hopefully] a Conservative, Mr. Bush is a Republican.
Bush may very well, realizing that the left is completely against him regardless of who he appoints, nominate an actual conservative to mend his relationship with the portion of the right he alienated by nominating Miers.... then the court would be great.
If he wants people like me to vote Republican in 2008 due to the fact that they're more conservative than any other electable option he's going to have to repair his relationship with people like me by nominating a Conservative... not a crony, and certainly not a left-leaning tool like Miers. Otherwise I'll vote third party.
Well, she's not a Conservative, and she's clearly not qualified.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loopz
Do you honestly believe if he appoints someone "qualified" (which of course he should) the left would be accepting? Of course not. Don't kid yourself - it's not all about cronyism. Roberts was more than qualified and the left was furious about that appointment - they just couldn't do a damn thing about it.
Very true. The reality is, Roberts was picked because of following anything Bush wants and Miers would of been the same. I'm glad something was finally done to not have her in office.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loopz
This is not what I wanted to hear. Now Bush is going to nominate an ultraconservative who's going to turn the U.S. into a theocracy. Tokyo, here I come! :oh_no:
There may be hope for that yet:Quote:
Originally Posted by DangerousK
:kekeke:Quote:
Bush To Appoint Someone To Be In Charge Of Country
October 12, 2005 | Issue 41•41
WASHINGTON, DC—In response to increasing criticism of his handling of the war in Iraq and the disaster in the Gulf Coast, as well as other issues, such as Social Security reform, the national deficit, and rising gas prices, President Bush is expected to appoint someone to run the U.S. as soon as Friday.
"During these tumultuous times, America is in need of a bold, resolute person who can get the job done," said Bush during a press conference Monday. "My fellow Americans, I assure you that I will appoint just such a person with all due haste."
The Cabinet-level position, to be known as Secretary of the Nation, was established by an executive order Sept. 2, but has remained unfilled in the intervening weeks.
"I've been talking to folks from all across this country, from Louisiana to Los Angeles, and people tell me the same thing: This nation needs a strong, compassionate leader," Bush said. "In response to these concerns, I'm making this a top priority. I will name a good, qualified person as soon as possible."
Among the new secretary's duties are preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution of the United States, commanding the U.S. armed forces, appointing judges and ambassadors, and vetoing congressional legislation. The secretary will also be tasked with overseeing all foreign and domestic affairs, including those relating to the economy, natural disasters, national infrastructure, homeland security, poverty, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The secretary will report directly to the president.
For weeks, members of both political parties have been urging Bush to fill the post.
"Every day the president waits is another day he's accountable for needless deaths at home and abroad, the stagnating economy, and the threat of terrorism," Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said. "This post is far too vital to be left vacant. Mr. President, there is no reason to delay."
"I applaud the president's decision to find a strong leader for our country, but it's imperative that he make his selection soon," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), adding that he and all Democrats hope to work closely with the new national executive.
"In the spirit of bipartisanship, we will welcome the new secretary," Reid said. "Together, we will strive for a new dawn of American politics, one unmarred by partisan bickering between Congress and the White House."
According to a nationwide poll conducted by the Cook Political Report, the majority of U.S. citizens find the question of national leadership to be highly significant, with 61 percent of respondents "strongly" believing that the country is suffering from a leadership vacuum. Fifty-four percent said they trusted Bush to find an appointee who will be able to effectively manage the country.
While many Beltway insiders have named senators Barack Obama (D-IL) and John McCain (R-AZ) as likely candidates, White House sources revealed that Bush may be leaning toward a stalwart loyalist. The list reportedly includes fellow Yale graduates, Midland, TX business associates, and various GOP fundraisers with connections to the Bush family.
"Despite their inexperience in government, they've clearly passed the Bush character test," said a White House staffer who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "I think the president is looking for someone he's comfortable with and can trust, above all else. A [former FEMA director] Michael Brown type, or maybe even Brown himself."
Bush said the creation of the Secretary of the Nation post directly addresses the increasingly complex and sometimes overwhelming challenges facing the executive branch in the 21st century. Although he acknowledged that the tasks facing the new appointee will be extraordinary, Bush ended his announcement on a positive note.
"As your president, it is my duty to see this nation through any crisis, no matter how severe. And as your president, I pledge to you that I will find a man capable of doing just that," Bush said. "I will not—I repeat, I will not—let you down."
Was that from The Onion, chimp?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins
You want a coservative nominee and officeholders, but if
you stay home and not vote republican in 2008, then you
will not get that in a long time. People that do that will
be handing the crazy Hillary the presidency in a silver plate.
If we don't support the repuplican party in 2008, then we
can kiss our nation good bye. Hillary and the libs will raise
income taxes, give a bunch of hand outs making our
defficit even worse, and will destroy our miltary by slashing
its budget into extintion. Our nation will go down the same
way the western roman empire did: its citizens all fat and
lazy while defense and the military where in the hands of
foreigners. Without a milatary of their own other poeples
just came in and carved up the territory of that state
for themselves
Be warned, history can repeat itself...
While this was all about her not being conservative enough, I'd like to see a nominee that's was at least a judge before they got nominated. Hell, even a traffic court judge seems more qualified than a legal counsel.
Or he could just mess with everyone and nominate "Brownie" :p We need more of that guy.
Oh he's been fucking up sir. SOME KINDA BAD!Quote:
Originally Posted by ki_atsushi
O.
Yep, a solid news site! :kekeke:Quote:
Originally Posted by ki_atsushi
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/41444
With that attitude the Republican party won't fix itself, that gives them a free pass to continue to stray from true Conservatism. Why would they represent my interests if they know my vote is a slam dunk regardless of what they do?Quote:
Originally Posted by avulon
If he doesn't appoint a Conservative, I won't vote Republican.
I know. It's a cryin' shame, for cryin' out loud! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by O. Yashiro
I'm tired of bush. I think we need to make an new amendment to the constitution, so that presidents can serve one term only!
I think the traditional conservative Republicans died off when Reagan was elected, that was when the whole Republican party lurched farther to the right. It used to be about being pro-business and more flexible on social issues (not seriously committed one way or the other), then, with each election after '80, the two became more and more intertwined.
Anyone ever looked at the policies of Eisenhower or Nixon? If you remove Tricky Dick's transgressions, I think they'd be easy to elect nowadays.
[EDIT: cleared up a bit]
yeah...but if we somehow link him to Shoeless Joe Jackson then he will be impeached for sure...yeah that's it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnaflux
Couldn't agree more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobak
Indeed. Party affiliation is of secondary importance. When I vote, the main things I consider are past actions. While a candidate may say they believe in God, or are pro-choice, etc., it is always best to look at as many of the things they have done in the past as possible. Those past actions are the best indicators of future tendencies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins
It's not about Finding a CONSERVATIVE, Or a LIBERAL....
It's about finding a person who can Interperate the law and do a damn good job of explaining why they rule that way.
THat's why Roberts was confirmed......
That's why Ginsburg Was Cofirmed....
That's why many people have respect for Scalia*....
That's why many people have respect for Breyer....
To find someone who will simply try to overturn Roe V. Wade is to find an Activist Judge.
*I don't have much respect for Anton Scalia because he refused to recuse himself from that Cheney SHit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by norton9478
Robert's was confirmed because he is Bush's bitch and the lapdog for the administration to get what they want done their way. The reality is, having someone that can Interperate the law without adding their belief of religion and keeping personal feelings out is what this country needs. It scares me that someone like Roberts side steps 70 percent of the questions he was asked in front of the council and even talks about how he would like to see Roe VS. Wade changed. Does anybody see the evil in this?
Then you got Miers, I won't even start about unwualified she is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins
So you rather have Hillary as President?
Why is it that Democrats are alyways given a free
pass when they fuck up, whereas Republican are
given none?
Is it because everyone knows Dems are mentally
challenged?
HahahahahQuote:
Originally Posted by avulon
Ladies and Gentlemen..........
I present to you,
Avulon
.................................................. .................................................. ...
In case you haven't noticed.... Things are going very very very badly in this country.Quote:
Originally Posted by avulon
The economy is in the shitter and 95% of the country is falling behinind.
We are losing a war overseas.
China Is setting up Spheres of Influence in our Back Yard (South America)
Our Old Allies in Europe hate our goverment.
On the fence Countries prefer to distance themselves from us.
Please remember that when you post.
----
I never thought I would say this...... But I wish that Scumbucket Clinton was still president.
Roberts did the exact same thing Ginsburg did, that is not a legitimate gripe. You can't have it both waysQuote:
Originally Posted by Highlander67
And no, it shouldn't be all about overturning past Supreme Court rulings (such as Roe V. Wade,) but such activity also can't be disqualified. It's all about upholding the Constitution and the principles within, and if the legislation brought about by Roe V. Wade were brought to the Supreme Court and found to be unconstitutional then so be it - it would not be beyond the authority and purpose of the Supreme Court. The right to have abortions was based mostly on the Constitution's guarantee of privacy; they said that many anti-abortion laws were in violation of it. They effectively ruled that the fetus wasn't human life and was therefore not privy to Constitutional protection - if you can't see the controversy in that I don't know what to tell you. Personally I believe it (the right to / not to have abortions) should be left to the sovereignty of the individual states (although I do believe that the fetus is human life... it can't be completely confirmed - nor can it be completely denied.) Likewise while I oppose gay marriage on a personal level I don't think it should be federally legislated - I believe that to be unconstitutional. It should be left to the states as individual entities.
Anyway, regardless of the abortion debate, certain past rulings practically need to get overturned due to their blatant disregard of the Constitution. The new rulings on Eminent Domain for example. That effectively hands the rights to your land over to the government, it is a travesty.
This article makes me giggle.
No of course not.Quote:
Originally Posted by avulon
Of course I don't give Democrats a free pass, but just because I'm a Conservative doesn't mean I'm going to give the Republicans a free pass. If they don't represent my beliefs then I will refuse to vote for them. The Democrats and the Republicans are continuing to blur the line between the two parties because people effectively have no choice but to vote for one or the other - to opt for the party they find least repulsive. I find that to be unAmerican, I think that I'd be doing this country a greater disservice by voting for the Republican party because they're "The lesser of two evils" (as stupid and cliched as that sounds.) If they (Republicans) were to lose an election because my attitude is shared by a significant amount of Conservatives then the Republican party would have no choice but to reevaluate what they're doing with the party.
And don't listen to Norton - he's politically senseless.
I'm just curious (is it ok if I'm curious for one second?) Mr. Dinkins, did you like Big Bad Bill at all?
Hhahaha, that's my exact position and Why I'm not registered Democrat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins
Guess I have more political Sense than you think.....
I didn't like him very much.....Quote:
Originally Posted by roker
It wasn't until about 2002 that I wished he was still president....
Clinton?Quote:
Originally Posted by roker
And of course you're curious Roker. You're at a confusing point in your life.
Contary to popular Belief,
Most Democrats accepted Roberts despite thier oppionons about him.
eeee yeahQuote:
Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins
you didn't think is was talking about D-lite's latest fling did you?
No, they wish he didn't make it through. They had no legitimate reason to not put him on the bench - he was squeaky clean, Constitutionally sound, and qualified. That's not the case for Miers.Quote:
Originally Posted by norton9478
Democrats tolerate Roberts (they have no choice, they make themselves look like asses otherwise,) they don't accept him. They don't accept anything Bush does.
No, I didn't like Clinton. I didn't like his policies (both foreign and domestic) and I didn't care for his character (and I think quality of character is of the utmost importance in the man who heads our country.)Quote:
Originally Posted by roker
I don't particularly like Bush either.... at least with Clinton I knew what to expect. I knew I was getting a liberal - while I prefer GW to Clinton GW was much, much more of a disappointment for me.
The only thing D-Lite flings are boogers.
They voted to go to war........Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins
Lol,Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins
Clinton is a Liberal...
LOL...
Yep, Liberals say the same thing when I say Bush isn't a Conservative.
They say something stupid like:
"Yeah, Bush isn't a Conservative. LOL!"
Clinton was a liberal. You're just so far to the left you don't see it. You're a socialist Norton.
Not everything he did was liberal, but he was one through and through.
Political Dinkins vs. Norton as usual. :kekeke:
Political Dinkins is the cat's vagina.
How can you be such a diehard conservative and still love to smoke weed and get high? Don't you think those two things are a bit contradictory? :conf:Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins
I don't think it's contradictory at all. Why do you think it's contradictory... because Nixon and Reagan pioneered the War on Drugs?Quote:
Originally Posted by chimpmeister
I'm a Constitutionalist, weed should be legal according to the Constitution.
Before this Drug Scheduling nonsense so many of today's illegal drugs (those that were around back then) were legal, they got around this by doing things like taxing them to death or the state's legislated them individually.
If anything it should be left up to the sovereignty of the states, I think it was retarded when California was legally (according to the state) handing out weed to "patients" and the feds busted in.
Fucking love that weed.
The ideal behind 'conservatism' is a conservative application of government. In other words, conservatives prefer less government involvment. When drug use was prohibited, this increased governing control over individual rights. Many conservatives (such as Dinkins) see the prohibition of weed to be a liberal application of government in that they consider it an excessive control on individual rights.