kapkomet

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 10:38 PM) But the outcry has not been just from the left, from the very outset. The day the story broke, Specter took issue with the president's apparent overreach even befor Russ feingold did. And are all the FISA judges who demanded a review to be let in on why they were sidestepped all left wing extremists? And finally, if it turns out that the NSA surveilance was in place well before 9/11 with Bush's blessing, there simply is no question of constitutionality because the 9/14/01 Joint Resolution the Justice Department is building it's house of cards on becomes entirely irrelevant. That might be true because the precedence had already been set, if you know what I mean. I think this has been done for 20 years or more, and was just now blown out of the water because Bush is the man they want to take down. JMO, of course.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 09:19 PM) I wonder how things will change after the Abramoff scandal and what role lobbyists will play in Washington. Seems like the environment was very low on the lobbying depth chart. Interesting observation. It will be something to keep an eye on.

Ok, I think it's time to stop playing with the monkey in the cage, or a troll, whatever you want to call him. Meanwhile, it's been fun playing, ya'll. We'll have to do it again sometime... but this has gone far enough, on many levels.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 08:58 PM) To me, that argument is a cop-out. Paint the other side of an argument as extremist, thus they can be dismissed as being unbelievable. Sure, I see a few people here and elsewhere who think everything is Bush's fault. And I see a lot of people who think Bush can do no wrong. But I don't use either fact as a block, throwing it at people here as if to say "see, you are an extremist, so I win." Personally, I really don't care all that much for George W. Bush as president, but he was the far better choice in the last two elections, IMO. But I will certainly defend him from all the stupidity that seems to be rampant across many areas of the media now.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 08:56 PM) His words were different in a sutble, but in my view important, way. He did say he'd be open-minded, but his statement also seemed to indicate he didn't want to say anything about his opinion of Roe's standing. Roberts did. That's a key difference, to me. I don't think he did, for the very same reasons we're talking about here. He was just as allusive... and quite on purpose.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 08:51 PM) Why bother adding that second sentence? It just makes it look like you have no intelligent argument to present, and you just like complaining that everyone seems to hate Bush. I don't think he's complaining, I think he's saying what definitely appears to be the case in the leftist's eyes.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 08:50 PM) That Roe v Wade is the part and parcel of the law of the land, and that it stands for itself. Any new cases would be judged on their own merit, but with that precedent in hand. I think he was pretty clear - as much as he can be without a complete scenario, anyway. With Alito, he pretty much dodged the question entirely, from what I saw. Um... Alito pretty much said the same thing - and that he knew that he had to "have an open mind" about any case that came before him.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 08:48 PM) s***. You are giving him too much credit. This thread is kinda like watching the monkey in his cage electrucuiting his balls 'cause it feels so good to him and be morbidly fascinated by it.

QUOTE(AnthraxFan93 @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 08:48 PM) Well he was also a Nazi.. HMMMM now we see the true meaning of the chruch. Pfffft. What an IDIOT!

This thread = entertainment at work, and playing with immature minds (aka Anthramoron). Nothing more, nothing less. Edit: oh, except Wong... I do still want to sit down and read closer to where you're coming from. Haven't been able to do that yet.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 08:24 PM) Candidates who toe the party line, even when it flies in the face of logic, turns me off. In either party. I have always liked candidates who were willing to make the right choice, even if it left their party "lines". People like McCain, Tsongas, Lugar, Powell (when he was considering it), Clark (though he had other problems) and even Kucinich. Those candidates may seem to be all over the board ideologically, but they all were willing to do the right thing, party affiliation or not. They had political cahones. I appreciate that type of courage in politicians. If the Dems could put up a candidate who could demonstrate a history of and desire for fiscal discipline, is good at building real compromise (NOT the same as flip-flopping) and is willing to take the GOP to task on their far right wing's religious fanatacism and hatred, would sweep into the White House. That's whay the Dems need. They don't need to kow-tow to social conservatism - they need the courage to stand for their convictions (not just b**** and moan), and the willingness to take responsibility for the business (fiscally and ethically) of government. You are absolutely dead on. That's my issue with the whiney sniveling liberals, and even some around here. They'd rather spend more time b****ing and pissing and moaning and talking about how that bastard in the White House has screwed the country so bad... then actually doing something constructive about trying to fix it. Rex is 100% right about one thing and that is it starts with the grass roots. Fix that, and you'll start getting "centrist" ideas, in both parties.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 06:05 PM) Time for another of my semi-occassional story updates. • The first item is a good challenge to Kap, who has suggested that there are as many legal/constitutional experts who think the "any means necessary" 9/14 Joint Resolution justification holds water as think it is hogwash. I don't think there's as many as - because a lot of people are jumping for the overthrow of our evil dictator-in-chief... I really still do believe that there is a certain amount of interpretation to this. I know you disagree, but I really still do think that, for a lot of reasons. I don't have 85 links of proof, other then what I have provided as far as the federalist papers and the Constitution itself. Nothing's going to happen. Nothing. And it's a damn shame in a way, because I for one would love to really know how the Constitutionality of this would stand in court. Furthermore, again, it still amazes me how this is all politicized - if it were THAT illegal, you'd HAVE to bring charges against him. The outcry would be much more then it is from just the left. I guess we're all brainwashed, though.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 06:56 PM) All right, I probably read to much into your post then. I think basically we are saying the samething about how we pick canditates. Myself I would have been solidly for something other than Bush first off in 2000. McCain was definately my first choice. Once it got down to Bush and Gore, I saw too much connection to the Clinton corruption and went with Bush thinking he would end up something like his father. To be honest I wanted to crossover in 04, but somehow in John Kerry they found a canditate I disliked more than Gore, and he was involved in most of the same scandals as Gore/Clinton. Exactly. I still say if the Dems EVER come up with someone credible and will really stand up for the REAL values of America, it doesn't matter what their party affiliation is, they'll win in a landslide. The fringe left needs to let go of the party... bigtime.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 05:21 PM) One of the big reasons why I am surprised that more Republicans (or should I call them "rightists") are not more up in arms with the guy. Regarding anything fiscally related, he is as far from being a conservative as Ted Kennedy. Oh, you won't get any arguments from any of us.

QUOTE(AnthraxFan93 @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 07:12 PM) Have another glass of the kool-aid.. I will, thanks. You=Pwned more then anyone I have seen on soxtalk, and that says something. Pwned Pwned Pwned (this is too much fun)

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 03:34 PM) Sorry, I think you misunderstood me. I actually was not referring to the crying as the political act - i don't even want to touch on that, because I have no idea if those tears were real or not, and I don't really care. That's why I said I feel no pity towards her or her husband, even if they DID feel badly. I am referring more to Alito's lack of solid responses to some important questions. I am trying to point out that judges should not be political animals, ideally. All of them are to some extent, but I seek candidates who are less so. Is that more clear? Yes. And I agree.

LFMAO! Have a two hour meeting and miss the fun! This thread is pure comedy gold. Anthramoron = pwned more then anyone I have ever seen on soxtalk, ever. Congratulations on your stupidity and asshatery.

QUOTE(AnthraxFan93 @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 03:15 PM) Eliminating religion will eliminate war. No it won't.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 06:20 AM) Classic™ You caught that, huh? Congrats. No one else did.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 02:54 PM) I have to sort of agree with Rex here. The GOP'ers in this thread are being awfully whiney, defensive and, frankly, sound like their own stereotyped versions of "leftists". I'm sorry but I don't feel one bit badly about Alito getting grilled or his wife being in tears. This man is looking to be nominated to the highest court in the land - I would expect BOTH parties to grill Alito like a steak at the family BBQ. We need to. He's not exactly being forthright, or open about his background and views. And frankly, while I don't think he's way-right (as some Dems seem to fear), I do think he's far too politically minded and wishy-washy for SCOTUS. Just my take. I don't see in this guy what we saw from Roberts - a man dedicated to the law with every bone in his body. And that's what I'd want from anyone on SCOTUS. I think it's bull s*** when every single move is "political". She cried. WAAAAAAAAH OMFG she's ACTING!!! Put the theatrics away about the theatrics, ok? Yes, his ass needs grilled, it's important. But grill him on things that matter, not on some stupid application from 30 years ago that has been vetted to mean nothing.

QUOTE(samclemens @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 01:54 PM) i feel sorry for whoever is going to do it, but if it's all the same...option #2 Feel sorry for me. It's going to be a long, painful process.

Interesting thoughts from ya'll. Keep them coming. I also have some ideas that we would probably roll out if we choose option two. But you'll just have to wait.

Again, the quakers reference. dammit... i never really did get to study that and I don't want to hunt for it, or is that in the GWB admits to wiretapping thread.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 04:35 AM) Did Mrs. Alito's coaching not cover the fact that her husband might actually be asked to explain how his documented history as a conservative idealogue and basically someone who will apparently say anything to get a job leaves him qualified to sit on the high court? Wow. I should just start beleiving this coming from you, but I can't.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 01:35 AM) Interestingly enough, the press accounts of her leaving don't refer to her as "Mrs Alito", they refer to her as Martha-Ann Bomgardner. Gee, I wonder why? No bias there.