Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 10/5/2005 1:21:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/5/2005 1:22:09 PM EDT by PogueMahone]
I'm sitting here watching Nicolle Wallace, the White House Communications Director, on CNN calling conservatives who criticize the Mier nomination "Hacks and Flacks" who should stick to what they know unless they've worked in the West Wing and know Mier.
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 1:24:35 PM EDT
Excuse us for voting for you.
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 1:25:51 PM EDT
your first mistake is watchin CNN
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 1:27:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Hawker:
your first mistake is watchin CNN





+1
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 1:29:45 PM EDT
CONSERVATIVES TO BUSH "APPOINT A REAL NOMINEE AND STFU"
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 1:31:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/5/2005 1:32:12 PM EDT by Jarhead_22]
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 1:31:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/5/2005 1:33:53 PM EDT by Grunteled]

Originally Posted By Hawker:
your first mistake is watchin CNN



So her words were were different on another station?

If that's how they feel..... fuck him and anyone who supports him. If they really want to tell me to piss off they can ask my dog to vote for them. . Other canidates that is... I know there's not much I can do about Bush in the next election since he ain't running.
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 1:32:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/5/2005 1:32:50 PM EDT by Janus]
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 1:47:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By POWER03:

Originally Posted By Hawker:
your first mistake is watchin CNN



+1


LOLhat), C-Span and so on. I hope this along with newspapers and USNWR (and you guys, too!hat
I'm becoming really worried about what Pres. Bush is going to do to us in the two years he has left in office.
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 1:58:58 PM EDT
I think the President said "I know this woman. Trust me on this one." I'll do so till the first round of opinions comes out. Sadly, Bush wouldn't be the first president - or even the first President Bush - to get shanked by a USSCt nominee he thought he knew.
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 2:05:04 PM EDT
Bush is an ass. He had his chance to completely F**K the Dems for a long, long, time-to really put the stake through their hearts. And yet he still panders to those who will not ever support him anyway. I think I have reached the point where I would vote for a gun-loving Dem. I cannot believe I just said that.
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 5:43:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
I think the President said "I know this woman. Trust me on this one." I'll do so till the first round of opinions comes out. Sadly, Bush wouldn't be the first president - or even the first President Bush - to get shanked by a USSCt nominee he thought he knew.



Well his communications director might need some remedial public relations instruction if that's really what she uttered. It seems like a pretty bold move to tell your core suppporters to just shut up and like it. Not a great way to get cooperation from your own side of the isle.
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 6:01:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Janus:
www.constitutionparty.com





+ FREAKING A THOUSAND!!
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 6:02:27 PM EDT
It's all right. I'm sure Hillary will do a fine job appointing her lawyer to SCOTUS.
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 6:30:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/5/2005 6:30:59 PM EDT by H46Driver]
Evidently Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, and George Will are hacks and flacks. While one could dismiss Coulter as a demagogue, the other two, especially Will are much harder to write off as "extremists". Will's column today was one of his best ever IMO.

George Will Column on Miers
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 6:32:43 PM EDT
That's it... I'm NOT voting for Bush in '08

Link Posted: 10/5/2005 6:40:48 PM EDT
I'm trusting Bush knows what he's doing.
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 6:41:51 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 6:42:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By H46Driver:
Evidently Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, and George Will are hacks and flacks. While one could dismiss Coulter as a demagogue, the other two, especially Will are much harder to write off as "extremists". Will's column today was one of his best ever IMO.

George Will Column on Miers



AND MICHELLE MALKIN!
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 6:44:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sp1shooter:
I'm trusting Bush knows what he's doing.


And if he doesn't and we get another souter, then what ?
Just STFU and take it I guess.
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 6:47:11 PM EDT
Word among conservative circles is Miers is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Most likely more of a social conservative than Roberts. President Bush may be the shrewdest politician of our time.
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 6:50:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/5/2005 6:52:31 PM EDT by 1Andy2]
yep. I'm probably going to vote Libertarian party next time...

our country is so screwed.

eta: I don't care what her PERSONAL politics are. I just want some PROOF that she'll uphold the constitution. Unlike several of our current justices...
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 6:55:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By pieceofstink:
Bush is an ass. He had his chance to completely F**K the Dems for a long, long, time-to really put the stake through their hearts. And yet he still panders to those who will not ever support him anyway. I think I have reached the point where I would vote for a gun-loving Dem. I cannot believe I just said that.



Preach it brother.
Fuck it. I'll probably vote for Hillary, just to bring about the end, albeit only about .03 nanoseconds faster.
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 6:55:43 PM EDT
Nominating this woman to the Supreme Court is an insult, and this time the Dims may be right about cronyism. This woman has never been a judge, and I don't think she has ever argued a single case before the US Supreme Court.

There are literally thousands of lawyers and judges in this country who are WAY more qualified than Miers to sit on the Supreme Court. This sure looks to me like Bush is rewarding a trusted and loyal soldier with a position that she does not deserve.

I hope that her nomination is voted down.
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 7:02:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By -Absolut-:
Word among conservative circles is Miers is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Most likely more of a social conservative than Roberts. President Bush may be the shrewdest politician of our time.



Oh well then that's OK then.

Word around some conservative circles is that BUSH is a wolf in sheeps clothing.
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 7:08:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
Nominating this woman to the Supreme Court is an insult, and this time the Dims may be right about cronyism. This woman has never been a judge, and I don't think she has ever argued a single case before the US Supreme Court.



Neither was Rehnquist.. mind you.
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 7:11:43 PM EDT
Read below at your own risk!!


David Kopel, October 3, 2005 at 6:20pm] 4 Trackbacks / Possibly More Trackbacks
Miers on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms: The New Republic's fine &c blog points to a 1992 article she wrote for the Texas Lawyer. In the article, she points to three infamous multiple homicides in Texas: the 1966 Texas Tower Shooting, in which a man climbed the clock tower at the University of Texas, and shot 14 people. (He was finally stopped when two policemen and a civilian rushed the building.) The second was the 1991 Killeen massacre, where a man entered a Luby's Cafeteria, and methodically slaughtered unarmed 23 people. (The incident played a major role in Texas rescinding its ban on carrying concealed handguns, and enacting a Shall Issue permit law.) The third incident in Miers' article had taken place recently; a man murdered two judges and two lawyers in a Fort Worth courthouse.

"How does a free society prevent" such crimes, she asked. She then explained:

The same liberties that ensure a free society make the innocent vulnerable to those who prevent rights and privileges and commit senseless and cruel acts. Those precious liberties include free speech, freedom to assemble, freedom of liberties, access to public places, the right to bear arms and freedom from constant surveillance. We are not willing to sacrifice these rights because of the acts of maniacs.
Miers, however, rejected the notion that "precious liberties", including "the right to bear arms," should be sacrificed in the name of crime prevention. Quite obviously, she was referring to the "right to bear arms" as an individual right.

It's technically possible that she was referring only to the Texas Constitutional arms right, which clearly is individual, rather than to the Second Amendment. However, the context of the quote does not seem so constricted, and even to describe the Texas right a precious liberty says a good deal about Ms. Miers' thinking.

Link Posted: 10/5/2005 7:17:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/5/2005 7:28:34 PM EDT by thebeekeeper1]
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 7:19:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
Nominating this woman to the Supreme Court is an insult, and this time the Dims may be right about cronyism. This woman has never been a judge, and I don't think she has ever argued a single case before the US Supreme Court.

There are literally thousands of lawyers and judges in this country who are WAY more qualified than Miers to sit on the Supreme Court. This sure looks to me like Bush is rewarding a trusted and loyal soldier with a position that she does not deserve.

I hope that her nomination is voted down.


Rehnquist was never a judge either, he turned out alright didn't he?
We know President Bush was looking for someone who wouldn't turn-coat 3-10 years down the line. Who would he know better than those in his most inner circle?
Don't get me wrong, i'm not very happy with the pick, BUT I understand it. If the President can get a conservative on the high court without a huge fight, it's advantageous to the party, and consequently to the country.
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 7:21:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By spm681:
Read below at your own risk!!


David Kopel, October 3, 2005 at 6:20pm] 4 Trackbacks / Possibly More Trackbacks
Miers on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms: The New Republic's fine &c blog points to a 1992 article she wrote for the Texas Lawyer. In the article, she points to three infamous multiple homicides in Texas: the 1966 Texas Tower Shooting, in which a man climbed the clock tower at the University of Texas, and shot 14 people. (He was finally stopped when two policemen and a civilian rushed the building.) The second was the 1991 Killeen massacre, where a man entered a Luby's Cafeteria, and methodically slaughtered unarmed 23 people. (The incident played a major role in Texas rescinding its ban on carrying concealed handguns, and enacting a Shall Issue permit law.) The third incident in Miers' article had taken place recently; a man murdered two judges and two lawyers in a Fort Worth courthouse.

"How does a free society prevent" such crimes, she asked. She then explained:

The same liberties that ensure a free society make the innocent vulnerable to those who prevent rights and privileges and commit senseless and cruel acts. Those precious liberties include free speech, freedom to assemble, freedom of liberties, access to public places, the right to bear arms and freedom from constant surveillance. We are not willing to sacrifice these rights because of the acts of maniacs.
Miers, however, rejected the notion that "precious liberties", including "the right to bear arms," should be sacrificed in the name of crime prevention. Quite obviously, she was referring to the "right to bear arms" as an individual right.

It's technically possible that she was referring only to the Texas Constitutional arms right, which clearly is individual, rather than to the Second Amendment. However, the context of the quote does not seem so constricted, and even to describe the Texas right a precious liberty says a good deal about Ms. Miers' thinking.





Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh­hhhhhhh......... those are facts.

People here don't like facts.
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 7:26:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By VooDoo3dfx:

Originally Posted By spm681:
Read below at your own risk!!


David Kopel, October 3, 2005 at 6:20pm] 4 Trackbacks / Possibly More Trackbacks
Miers on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms: The New Republic's fine &c blog points to a 1992 article she wrote for the Texas Lawyer. In the article, she points to three infamous multiple homicides in Texas: the 1966 Texas Tower Shooting, in which a man climbed the clock tower at the University of Texas, and shot 14 people. (He was finally stopped when two policemen and a civilian rushed the building.) The second was the 1991 Killeen massacre, where a man entered a Luby's Cafeteria, and methodically slaughtered unarmed 23 people. (The incident played a major role in Texas rescinding its ban on carrying concealed handguns, and enacting a Shall Issue permit law.) The third incident in Miers' article had taken place recently; a man murdered two judges and two lawyers in a Fort Worth courthouse.

"How does a free society prevent" such crimes, she asked. She then explained:

The same liberties that ensure a free society make the innocent vulnerable to those who prevent rights and privileges and commit senseless and cruel acts. Those precious liberties include free speech, freedom to assemble, freedom of liberties, access to public places, the right to bear arms and freedom from constant surveillance. We are not willing to sacrifice these rights because of the acts of maniacs.
Miers, however, rejected the notion that "precious liberties", including "the right to bear arms," should be sacrificed in the name of crime prevention. Quite obviously, she was referring to the "right to bear arms" as an individual right.

It's technically possible that she was referring only to the Texas Constitutional arms right, which clearly is individual, rather than to the Second Amendment. However, the context of the quote does not seem so constricted, and even to describe the Texas right a precious liberty says a good deal about Ms. Miers' thinking.





Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh­hhhhhhh......... those are facts.

People here don't like facts.



Yup, facts just plain suck. The really negative to facts is they tend to kill off a thread like this in short order.
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 7:30:01 PM EDT
Yes I am sure whoever President Kerry nominated would be better.


Link Posted: 10/5/2005 7:32:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By -Absolut-:

Rehnquist was never a judge either, he turned out alright didn't he?
We know President Bush was looking for someone who wouldn't turn-coat 3-10 years down the line. Who would he know better than those in his most inner circle?
Don't get me wrong, i'm not very happy with the pick, BUT I understand it. If the President can get a conservative on the high court without a huge fight, it's advantageous to the party, and consequently to the country.



Rehnquist turned out OK. just ok, not great. GWB had the chance to put TWO strict constructionists on the court. instead he opted for the gutless choice. instead of having four on the court we'll now have 2 and one probably and one who knows what.

how do we know she's not gonna turncoat 10years from now? she used to be a democrat by all accounts. guess she has already turned once at least huh.

I read George Will's column and I agree with it 100%.


the real choice shoulda been janice rogers brown. the dems woulda went apeshit and she still would have gotten confirmed. and we'd have a known quantity up there.
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 7:34:50 PM EDT
Gutless my arse!

Bush is a genius!

I'm still grinning because of his picks (Miers, Roberts)
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 7:36:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CRC:
Yes I am sure whoever President Kerry nominated would be better.






I'll bet he would have nominated a known quantity and not just some "stealth" candidate.

the Dems are unabashed in the folks they nominate. Darth Vader Ginsburg ring any bells? a freakin card carrying member of the ACLU.

Bush's job is too put the most qualified candidate on the court. not just somebody he "trusts" cuz he's known her along time.
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 7:43:29 PM EDT
Look. She MAY be fantastic. She MAY be a werewolf in sheeps clothing poised to destroy the entire barge of liberal thinking. She MAY be the best justice that ever sat on the bench. Maybe. There is not one damn thing to know about this lady and what her inner thoughts are on the issues of the day other than the simple say-so of Bush. Some articles here and there and a blurd or two. Maybe he's right. But there is good reason to be a little leary of a pick that nobody can produce anything but a few articles here and there to make an up-or-down call on her.

Rehnquist may have been just like that, but is that a reason to make it a habit? I have met people who on occasion with no qualifications other than a recommendation turn out to be gems. On the other hand how often do you in the process of hiring a person or evaluating them just toss aside the fact that they have nothing of intrest to base a choice on, when in the field there are hundreds of others with a long list of qualifications. Because it worked out once is not a great reason to repeat it.

What galls me is the "shut up and like it" attitude that got presented today. Fuck him and the horse he rode in on if he feels he has no reason to back up and explain his choice to the people who put him in office. That is what set me on fire today. Not a bright move in my view at all.

If it's all part of your master stroke of genuis perhaps you might want to fill in the heavy hitters on your side so they aren't giving the press great quotes of a republican seriously questioning the appointment. I get that nasty "deal" feeling here and I don't like that she was on a list of "won't fight it's" for the Dems.

Link Posted: 10/5/2005 7:44:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CRC:
Gutless my arse!

Bush is a genius!

I'm still grinning because of his picks (Miers, Roberts)



Is there something you KNOW about her that the rest us are missing?
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 7:45:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/5/2005 7:47:08 PM EDT by CRC]
Yeah.

They are conservatives that reject the Al Gore 'living breathing document' BS.



Link Posted: 10/5/2005 7:47:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By spm681:

Originally Posted By VooDoo3dfx:

Originally Posted By spm681:
Read below at your own risk!!


David Kopel, October 3, 2005 at 6:20pm] 4 Trackbacks / Possibly More Trackbacks
Miers on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms: The New Republic's fine &c blog points to a 1992 article she wrote for the Texas Lawyer. In the article, she points to three infamous multiple homicides in Texas: the 1966 Texas Tower Shooting, in which a man climbed the clock tower at the University of Texas, and shot 14 people. (He was finally stopped when two policemen and a civilian rushed the building.) The second was the 1991 Killeen massacre, where a man entered a Luby's Cafeteria, and methodically slaughtered unarmed 23 people. (The incident played a major role in Texas rescinding its ban on carrying concealed handguns, and enacting a Shall Issue permit law.) The third incident in Miers' article had taken place recently; a man murdered two judges and two lawyers in a Fort Worth courthouse.

"How does a free society prevent" such crimes, she asked. She then explained:

The same liberties that ensure a free society make the innocent vulnerable to those who prevent rights and privileges and commit senseless and cruel acts. Those precious liberties include free speech, freedom to assemble, freedom of liberties, access to public places, the right to bear arms and freedom from constant surveillance. We are not willing to sacrifice these rights because of the acts of maniacs.
Miers, however, rejected the notion that "precious liberties", including "the right to bear arms," should be sacrificed in the name of crime prevention. Quite obviously, she was referring to the "right to bear arms" as an individual right.

It's technically possible that she was referring only to the Texas Constitutional arms right, which clearly is individual, rather than to the Second Amendment. However, the context of the quote does not seem so constricted, and even to describe the Texas right a precious liberty says a good deal about Ms. Miers' thinking.





Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh­hhhhhhh......... those are facts.

People here don't like facts.



Yup, facts just plain suck. The really negative to facts is they tend to kill off a thread like this in short order.



There is more to what I want than just gun rights. However her view from that one blurb sounds nice.
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 7:47:45 PM EDT
Oh and they won't look to international law either.

CRC
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 7:49:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CRC:
Oh and they won't look to international law either.

CRC



I agree with you there. In that respect it will be great to see O'Connor take a bow and move on.
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 7:53:41 PM EDT
It comes down to you either blindly trust the President's judgement or you don't. Simple.

Based upon some recent actions and inactions I am afraid I am in the "don't" category these days. I want more of a sure thing.
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 7:54:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By H46Driver:
Evidently Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, and George Will are hacks and flacks. While one could dismiss Coulter as a demagogue, the other two, especially Will are much harder to write off as "extremists". Will's column today was one of his best ever IMO.

George Will Column on Miers



Demagogues lie and pander to the masses, promising the moon in exchange for the rabble's support. They usual are politicians and appeal to the mob's basest desires.

Ann Coulter's best described as a human Uzi that hates her ideological enemies more than anything. She's not even a politician.
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 7:54:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By arfreak74:

Originally Posted By -Absolut-:

Rehnquist was never a judge either, he turned out alright didn't he?
We know President Bush was looking for someone who wouldn't turn-coat 3-10 years down the line. Who would he know better than those in his most inner circle?
Don't get me wrong, i'm not very happy with the pick, BUT I understand it. If the President can get a conservative on the high court without a huge fight, it's advantageous to the party, and consequently to the country.



Rehnquist turned out OK. just ok, not great. GWB had the chance to put TWO strict constructionists on the court. instead he opted for the gutless choice. instead of having four on the court we'll now have 2 and one probably and one who knows what.

how do we know she's not gonna turncoat 10years from now? she used to be a democrat by all accounts. guess she has already turned once at least huh.

I read George Will's column and I agree with it 100%.


the real choice shoulda been janice rogers brown. the dems woulda went apeshit and she still would have gotten confirmed. and we'd have a known quantity up there.



So was Ronald Reagan.
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 7:58:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CRC:
Gutless my arse!

Bush is a genius!

I'm still grinning because of his picks (Miers, Roberts)



Bush has pulled off so many successes in his presidency that I don't doubt him one little bit. Not one bit. He is like a puppet master, while others play the parts he pulls the strings as he sees fit.
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 8:00:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/5/2005 8:01:33 PM EDT by CRC]
As more conservatives rail against Miers, she should sail through.


This is all part of the plan.

Now lets see the Dims call her a 'right wing extremist'

How can she be? Even Ann Coulter opposes her.
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 8:02:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JHill:

Originally Posted By Janus:
www.constitutionparty.com





+ FREAKING A THOUSAND!!



www.blowyourvote.com

listen... I may agree with some of the other political parties such as the 'constitution party' but the bottom line is they arent valid in this day and age when it comes to elections... so I'm not going to waste my vote on them. It's pretty much..vote republican or give your vote to the dem's....its unfortunate.
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 8:06:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Grunteled:

Originally Posted By spm681:

Originally Posted By VooDoo3dfx:

Originally Posted By spm681:
Read below at your own risk!!




David Kopel, October 3, 2005 at 6:20pm] 4 Trackbacks / Possibly More Trackbacks
Miers on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms: The New Republic's fine &c blog points to a 1992 article she wrote for the Texas Lawyer. In the article, she points to three infamous multiple homicides in Texas: the 1966 Texas Tower Shooting, in which a man climbed the clock tower at the University of Texas, and shot 14 people. (He was finally stopped when two policemen and a civilian rushed the building.) The second was the 1991 Killeen massacre, where a man entered a Luby's Cafeteria, and methodically slaughtered unarmed 23 people. (The incident played a major role in Texas rescinding its ban on carrying concealed handguns, and enacting a Shall Issue permit law.) The third incident in Miers' article had taken place recently; a man murdered two judges and two lawyers in a Fort Worth courthouse.

"How does a free society prevent" such crimes, she asked. She then explained:

The same liberties that ensure a free society make the innocent vulnerable to those who prevent rights and privileges and commit senseless and cruel acts. Those precious liberties include free speech, freedom to assemble, freedom of liberties, access to public places, the right to bear arms and freedom from constant surveillance. We are not willing to sacrifice these rights because of the acts of maniacs.
Miers, however, rejected the notion that "precious liberties", including "the right to bear arms," should be sacrificed in the name of crime prevention. Quite obviously, she was referring to the "right to bear arms" as an individual right.

It's technically possible that she was referring only to the Texas Constitutional arms right, which clearly is individual, rather than to the Second Amendment. However, the context of the quote does not seem so constricted, and even to describe the Texas right a precious liberty says a good deal about Ms. Miers' thinking.





Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh­hhhhhhh......... those are facts.

People here don't like facts.



Yup, facts just plain suck. The really negative to facts is they tend to kill off a thread like this in short order.



There is more to what I want than just gun rights. However her view from that one blurb sounds nice.



Hey.. thats great.. she likes guns.. I'm happy. But I am willing to bet that there were just a couple other more qualified people who also like guns and so much more.

I still want this lady to explain why she gave money to the democrats....

Other than that.. I dont know anything about her.. so... I cant say that I hate her.. but then again.. i dont usually trust things I dont know without a little explaination... and I dont mean the "trust me" type explaination.
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 8:08:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JHill:

Originally Posted By Janus:
www.constitutionparty.com





+ FREAKING A THOUSAND!!



Whohooo! Theocracy rocks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link Posted: 10/5/2005 8:09:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
I think the President said "I know this woman. Trust me on this one." I'll do so till the first round of opinions comes out. Sadly, Bush wouldn't be the first president - or even the first President Bush - to get shanked by a USSCt nominee he thought he knew.



Like Bernard Kerrick

"I know this man" bush said.

I'm waiting to hear more on Mrs. Mier.
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 8:13:38 PM EDT
If you continue to vote for Republican candidates whom you know will refuse to curtail government spending, will enlarge the federal government, and refuse to support the constitution, you have no room to complain when they do all those things.

Vote for the candidate you think is best for the job. Don't vote Republican just because they're big and compete with the Democrats.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top