<<How so?? Who attacked anyone's character?? When? Roberts and Alito
were
both coached by the same Pug team. >>

In particular this guy should see Chuck Schumers rationale for
demanding answers to questions such as how a nominee would vote on
particular issues. Schumer argues, correctly IMO, that if you cannot
ask a nominee substantive questions about how he will behave as a judge
then the only way to defeat a nominee is character assassination. If
Republicans really wanted a cleaner process they would encourage their
nominees to answer all questions honestly and fully. But if they did
that then Bush would never be able to get his far right judges on the
court.

"t1gercat" <wexford1778@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1137167433.650464.283010@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

BaJoRi wrote:

"t1gercat" <wexford1778@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1137127488.480295.210190@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Terry Cross wrote:

Dave Lister wrote:

What is wrong with the Republicans?

They are corrupt bureaucrats who, along with the Democrats, waste our tax
dollars and spend most of their time getting their sorry asses re-elected
instead of worrying about the real issues of the country.

With Republican George Bush as President we no longer have a leader
seeking to positively inspire Americans to greatness, we have a
President for the first time seeking to govern by the manipulation
of
our basest and most irrational fears.

"For the first time?" Bush does not seek to govern. Bush seeks to
rule.

The difference between "Liberal" and "Conservative" in the United
States is really not that great. Both seek unlimited power.

Nonsense. The Liberal imperative has always been to share power, open
the electorate, support civil rights, and restrain government so that
it operates within the confines of the Constitution. That's hardly
compatible with the arrogation of power.

That is an absolute untruth, which is why whenever a minority professes
themselves to be conservative it is the immediate reaction of the liberal
establishment to label them as "Uncle Tom's" or "betraying their race",
etc.

Quote one Liberal who has ever put that in writing or said that.

Just go to Google and in quotation marks put the following two terms: "Colin
Powell" and "uncle tom". Not only will you find items of prominent liberals
like George Soros, the ultimate liberal financerier, using those terms to
describe ANY black person in the Bush Administration, you will not find ANY
reference to other liberal leaders denouncing such pronouncements. When
asked by Tim Russert about Oreo cookies being thrown at Michael Steel of
Maryland, who happens to be black as well as Republican (and running for
U.S. Senate), Dean refused to criticize such acts. The NAACP actually
encouraged those same types of behaviors.

Face it: Liberals are attempting to propagate idealogical slavery on
minority communities. And those that do not wish to kowtow to such are
ridiculed, and it is allowable to use racist and derogatory epothets to make
the point.

This

is a typical ploy of neo-cons. A conservative member of a minority
group, say Thomas or Gonzales, may say or write something utterly
outrageous or intensely stupid. If the statement, assertion or opinion
is then criticized by a Liberal, neo-cons respond with a stock line:
you don't like them because they're "uncle Toms" or "betraying their
race."

As it is Liberals who constantly use those terms, your assertion is not
valid. I still remember gary trudeau portraying Condaleeza Rice as Aunt
Jemima in his strip, complete with shawl, fat lips, etc., and no one on the
left wing denounced him. If someone with a conservative backround had done
the same there would have been (justifiably so) absolute mayhem as Jesse and
Al and Dean, etc. rushed to condemn. But it was a prominent liberal, so
nothing.

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005716.php


It's always easier to respond with that line than to address the

issue, whether its Sewell's pathological hatred of public education or
Gonzales's justification of torture. A Liberal criticism elicits the
same well-worn response, the same old neo-con talking point. You really
should learn to think for yourself.

You have already lost the point, and you don't' realize it. You make the
assumption that anyone who doesn't agree with your liberal ideaology is
automatically a neo-conservative. That is just wrong. You use the exact same
course of thought of which you claim liberals do not partake.

The absolute proof that liberals do not care to acknowledge the fact
that other peopls views matter is the current Alito hearings, and the
Robertts hearings previously (as well as any other Republican nominated
Supreme Court justice since Reagan).

How so??? Neither Alito nor Roberts would ever divulge what they
thought about anything. Both were carefully coached to sit calmly and
give evasive answers to Democrats while Republican Senators asked no
questions but gave plenty of praise and support. This was theatre,
nothing more.

Theater, yes. As the confirmations have been for decades. Why is it then
that two nominees, with the highest ratings the Bar has to offer, are
attacked on their personal beliefs, and not on any act or action on their
parts that would justify a vote against?

The Republicans turned the hearings to mush, probed

nothing, asked no hard questions, and didn't do their jobs as Senators.

Tell that to Arlen Specter. You obviously did not watch any of the hearings,
and instead took in everything you know from select soundbites, force fed
you by whatever liberal media source you call accurate.

For example, when Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed by the Senate, the
vote
was 99-0. Many Republicans came out with very vocal opposion to her views
on
many issues, which they considered to be far-left and extremist. But they
voted for her anyways because she was QUALIFIED, and they felt that the
President had the right to appoint someone to the court who shared his
judical views.

They voted for her because she was the best person for the position.
Name one, just one, far-left and "extremist" judicial decision she had
ever made prior to her nomination.

Ginsberg was general council for the ACLU, the largest liberal group in the
country, which has defended NAMBLA, among other things. Read the Wall Street
Journal Report by Manuel Miranda on Ginsberg's 1974 report on prostitution
(where she puts forth the idea that it should be legal under U.S. Privacy
Laws, while at the same time making a case for lowering the age of consent
to 12 years old. And those two items together mean.......

Fairly radical, don't you think? But those views were not a reason to block
her confirmation, as there was nothing illegal about them.

Same with her
stances on abortion. She has always been a very vocal advocate for abortion
rights.

By their current stances on Alito and Roberts, where they say
personal feelings should not enter into decisions, democrats should have
voted AGAINST Ruth Ginsberg.

But she was unanimously confirmed because, as
you pointed out, she was qualified. Alito and Roberts are both QUALIFIED for
the positions for which they were nominated. And for liberals to vote
against them on idealogical grounds, and not law, is the type of behavior
that you profess does not exist within the liberal mindset.

She was a recognized scholar, a

well-respected judge, and a loving mother to her child.

Roberts is a recognized scholar, well-respected, and a loving parent also.
Why was he not confirmed unanimously, like Ginsberg? Alito is a recognized
scholar, well-respected, and I assume a loving parent. Why is there so much
issue with his confirmation?

With both Roberts and Alito, the liberals have never challenged someone's
qualifications for the post, they have challeneged the personal views of
the
nominee, and gone on to wage character assassination.

How so?? Who attacked anyone's character??

Kennedy and friends have consistently called into question both Roberts and
Alito's character as involving Civil Rights, expressing the idea that anyone
who doesn't view such as kennedy does is racist and mysoginistic. Isn't
character assassination to you?

Kennedy even made reference to it in his
opening statements. What's worse, after his little tantrum, Kennedy gave a
tight smile to Alito then turned to the news cameras and gave them a hearty
grin, all ready for the 6 o'clock news. I watched that happen.

On top of that, the one item for which there is a real legitimate question
regarding Alito (his taking part in a case involving Vangaurd Mutual Funds),
Kennedy proved himself to be a hypocrite, as he had once defended then
nominee Stephen Breyer who had been in a similar circumstance (involving
Lloyd's of London and pollution insurance) Alito earlier in his career. Why
would Kennedy defend that one circumstance for Breyer, but make it a big
issue for Alito?

When? Roberts and Alito were

both coached by the same Pug team. They sat and calmly evaded
questions, answering little or nothing.

Doesn't matter is they answered or not. kennedy and friends have already
made up their mind. kennedy's own writings, before the hearings started,
indicated his disapproval of both Alito and Roberts.

Alito had proudly proclaimed

himself a member of the Concerned Graduates of Princeton on a job
application. He was 35 years old when did this. Asking him about his
membership in a organization that was adamantly racist, sexist,
homophobic and even against the handicapped is a legitimate form of
questioning. His answers were obvious lies and evasions.

Did you know that liberal and former democratic Senator Bill Bradley had
also been a member, and during Alito's 1985 confirmation hearings backed
Alito "100 percent". Would you say that Bill Bradley, who has a long,
positive record on Civil Rights, is a racist, as you do Alito?

They ignore the fact
that both Alito and Roberts were unanimously recommended by the Bar
Association, and that they both have distinguished records in public
service.

Yeah, and so are 500 other potential Supreme Court nominees. You
ignore the fact that the appointment of a justice to the Supreme Court
is (1) for life and (2) can affect the entire legal and social fabric
of this country.

So what?. That didn't stop conservative Republicans voting for Ruth
Ginsberg, former general council of the ACLU.

They recognized two things,
which Kennedy and his toadies have not. 1) She was qualified, even though
her views on abortion and other things completely contradicted their own. 2)
The President has the right to choose justices that represent his judicial
philosophy, as he WON THE ELECTION.

People with differing viewpoints from
yourself are just as entitled to have those views represented in the courts,
even the Supreme Court. Anyways, that doesn't matter as their personal
views, whether you agree with them or not, do not affect their suitability
for the Supreme Court. The two men are both highly qualified, so should have
been given the same consideration as Ginsberg, and not attacked for their
views on different social criteria. What matters is their fitness for the
bench, which liberal Democrats seemingly ignore.

Senators should ask hard questions, probe very deeply

and pick the very best from the lot.

According to the Bar Association, both Roberts and Alito are two of the
best. So how do you justify the negative votes of liberals?

Now, would I have like dto see a pair of nominees more centrist on key
issues like abortion, right to privacy, etc? Yes. But these guys are
qualified, and a president should be allowed to nominate someone that
shares
his views on judicial matters, as long as the qualifications pass
scrutiny.

Why should the president be allowed to do what he wants when the
Constitution clearly calls for the "advice and consent" of the Senate.
You do know what "consent" means, don't you?

Yes, do you? How can you justify voting negatively on a QUALIFIED CANDIDATE!
To do so is the absolute definition of idealogical partisan gamesmanship.

In short, liberals may profess themselves to be the champions of free
speech, but they are such only as long as that speech coincides with
their
own personal views.

Oh, horseshit. Liberals have always, always supported free speech,

As long as those views coincide with their own.

even speech they consider obnoxious and harmful. It's the neo-cons who
are always complaining about other people's speech, calling criticism
of anything they do "irresponsible."

Try again. You are proven wrong, but won't have the guts to admit it.
Liberals use the exact same tactics as conservatives.

Hell, Nixon wanted to find a way
to censor newspapers, and Bush is freely complaining about his critics
and their "abuse" of free speech. Name a Liberal who ever told a
Conservative to shut up. O'Reilley and Hannity do it all the time.

Al Franken? Howard Dean? George Soros?

Also, trying to say that liberals attempt to restrain government is
ridiclous, as it is liberals who gave us the welfare state, and most very
major entitlement program of the 20th century.

No, Liberals didn't "give" the American people anything. The American
people voted in representatives who were Liberal with the understanding
that those things would be initiated, and continued to vote them in for
20 years afterward.

The neo-cons want to the put the government in
your bedroom,

By your definition, that is Clinton as well. Or do you forget some of the
marriage laws that he signed while he was president?

want to force you to accept government-sponsored

religion

Oh? When have I ever been forced to church? Or to prayer service? I don't go
for any of that prattle, but people with a vested belief in such have as
much right as you or I to be represented in government. How is it alright
for you to force your beliefs, or lack thereof, on them?

, want to tap your phones, and want to control your press


Name me a president that hasn't wanted to control the press? As for the
powers of the NSA and CIA, can you name the president who authorized the
largest increase of covert activities for the CIA and NSA since their
inception? Give you a hint: the last name wasn't Reagan, Bush, OR Clinton.
It was Jimmy Carter.

In
addition, they love large government and have done a great deal to make
it larger.

A true conservative actually is for smaller government. But you are still
assumong that the Republicans in control are true conservatives, when they
are not. They have fallen for the greatest political trap every created: the
idea that entitlement spending will get you votes. It worked for Kennedy and
Byrd, they reason, so why not them?

Both seek
a stratified society where some people get rich and the rest get
nothing. Both seek ultimately to ascend to tyranny. And the
inescapable obstacle to that ascent is always the armed and educated
middle class.

Utter delusion. The Pugs want to concentrate wealth among the upper
class. Liberals never discouraged the accumulation of wealth and,
indeed, when Liberals ran the Congress and Senate, a huge number of
people accumulated a great amount of wealth.

Yes, the Congressmen and the Senators. it's called bribery and graft.

What therefore, is the difference? Liberals seek to destroy the
Middle
Class with guilt. Given the right levers of accusation and deception,
the Middle Class can be made to abandon their guns, their liberties,
their wealth, and their rights. In fact, they are already doing so.

???? This is utterly nuts.

The Conservatives, in contrast, seek to destroy the Middle Class with
fear. Given the right levers of accusation and deception, the Middle
Class can be made to abandon their guns, their liberties, their
wealth,
and their rights. In fact, they are already doing so.

No, Sportin Life, the Pugs are doing it by creating laws and an
economic environment that forsters the outplacement of manufacturing
jobs. That destroys the middle class.

So, if other countries decided that they should turn protectionsist, as
you
advocate the U.S. do as regarding out-sourcing, are you aware of how many
jobs would disapear from our economy? Do the research, and when you
decide
the number is over 7 million, you will be close enough to the mark that
you
can speak intelligently about such things.

Where am I advocating protectionism, dimwit? You stop outsourcing
through productivity increases

Brilliant. Utterly brilliant. It's amazing no one thought of that. Increase
productivity to stop out-sourcing. You are a GENIUS! Sort of like the
guinness commercial. BRILLIANT!

in productivity because the same item can be built for half the price
elsewhere, and you are stuck with a warehouse full of product, what do you
do then?

Again, if other countries took the attitude you profess, and stop
out-sourcing to the U.S., our economy would be devastated.

As fpr
capitalism, isn't the result of such that if you can build the same product
for less elsewhere, and make more profit, doesn't it make sense to build it
where it costs less?

and you do that by investing in captial

machinery and equipment, and by making your processes more efficient.

Which means laying off workers, which in many cases is fought by the unions.

Cases in point: Delphi, GM, Ford, Chrysler, Boeing. And if the unions will
not let you become more efficient, and you lose money, so have nothing left
with which to invest, what are you supposed to do?

That's CAPITALISM. It's called CAPITALISM because it's based on the
theory that a risky investment in capital (labor, land and machinery)
will bring about rewards in terms of profits. Outsourcing is
anti-capitalistic.

Wrong. it is the ultimate expression of capitalism. Build it cheaper, make
more money. Again, you are espousing protectionsist philosophy. If other
countries did as you would want the U.S. to do, what would be the result?
more than 7 million lost jobs, that are out-sourced to here.

It's moving to more primitive means of production

and less efficiency but making up the difference though labor savings.
It creates short-term profits but long-term misery. Republicans are all
about short-term profits. They care nothing for this country, its
economy, its manufacturing capabilities, or its working people.

I thought that halfway through this, you would exhaust your supply of
useless hyperbole and stop foaming at the mouth and stop spouting endless
idiocy.

I was wrong.

The process of democracy is to treat the public with one arm of
punishment until they weary and will tolerate no more. At the next
election, they are permitted to elect the opposite party and suffer
their abuse from the other arm. Those who would ascend to tyranny are
not really concerned with which arm wins an election - in the end, the
people will choose their own nemesis and the result will be the same.

Don't like Democracy? Move to Iran.

Look, Partner, this stuff reads a lot like the Unibomber texts. Seek
help.

Face it: Liberals are attempting to propagate idealogical slavery on
minority communities. And those that do not wish to kowtow to such are
ridiculed, and it is allowable to use racist and derogatory epothets to make
the point.