Free Republic

I don’t think it’s anything you should fret about

Holder actually agreed to meet with Issa?

That’s awfully white of him.

Congrats on the new goody. If you want to make loading a snap, look up maglula and buy one. I think YouTube has some clips demonstrating its use. I bought one for a Hi Point .45 and it made magazine loading completely painless (and fast).

So instead of going suicidal, he relied upon some other sucker.

“I just had a liberal friend tell me that the terms “legislating from the bench” and “activist judges” stem ONLY from the right wing nuts. I KNOW this is not true, but I am having a hard time finding articles which come from the left when talking about Bush nominees or actual cases where activist judges legislated from the bench.”

What difference does it make where the term originated? This is one of liberals’ favorite tricks in that they assume the right to place the burden of proof on you and send you scurrying around trying to find formal arguments for irrelevancies. Notice, no argument is made about whether or not ‘legislating from the bench’ is good or bad, the whole question is a phony one about whether or not the expression stemmed from ‘riht wing nuts.’ Quit letting liberals frame the debate and limit the language that can be used in discussion.

I’m to the point where I’d rather hand them their teeth than “proof” they ask.

My letter to HBO:

Although you do seem to have some enjoyable programming, I usually just don't watch Maher’s usual anti-American screed. However, with his latest comment impugning our armed forces, implying our troops stationed in Japan and Germany are responsible for all their rapes, crosses a line that I can no longer tolerate.

I'll be canceling my subscription to your services and contacting a couple of million of my closest on-line friends urging them to do the same. I can see no reason why one penny of my money should go to support the deconstruction of my country.

Is there a way to get rid of the sidebar on the right of the screen? Yesterday my homepage gave me the names of the articles and the first paragraph in the whole article going all the way across my monitor; today I have this huge sidebar which just gets in my way. It’s like reading a newspaper through a tube.
I’ve tried everything I can think of to dump it, but no joy.

It’s easier to re-take an existing party than it is to start a new one. We need to take over the Republican party in order to ever hope for power.

I don't understand the flap about refueling. According to AF information, the C-20 has a range of 4,715 miles, and the distance between DC and San Francisco is less than 2,500 miles.

"I disagree. This country allows the politically correct crowd dictate the way our military is allowed to conduct war. Not allowing our guys to kill 170 Taliban because they're in a cemetary???!"

If what I think you think is true, then I agree with you; however, I heard from an ex-military source I trust that the UAV wasn't armed.

The one thing we can both agree on, I believe, is that the left and the enemedia are pulling out all stops in attempting to turn Americans against the war. Publishing the story the way they did, whether true and accurate or not, was successful in stirring that pot a little and was probably successful in swaying the opinions of many who have firsthand knowledge of the meaning of "fubar" when it comes to military operations.

Until we have more information to go on, and preferably from someone other than the DBM, I'm going to be a bit reluctant to join the chorus of outrage. I will agree that any degree of political correctness is absolutely misplaced and dangerous, especially when it comes to prosecuting a war, but I'm not yet convinced that PC is involved in the story as presented by the media.

I think it much more likely that this story was offered more to shake our confidence in our leaders than to point out an actual military deficiency.

I think the name of it (on the record, at least) was "China Nights"

Can anyone who has access to the paper provide the names of some of the more prominent advertisers, especially any large national companies?
I feel like sending them some e-mails.

When they were pushing conversion to the metric system, I don't remember anyone ever coming up with a figure of what it would cost (either in pounds or dollars). /p
It would mean that every machine shop and factory would have billions of dollars tied up in machinery (lathes, milling machines, etc) that would be almost useless as soon as the conversion were complete; not to mention all of the tool boxes which, at the time, contained nothing but SAE wrenches and sockets.

You can have what you can take. You can keep what you can hold.

Actually, it's not a bad bet if the size of the jackpot is greater than the inverse of the chance of winning.

"My only fear is that boredom will set in if they start eavesdropping on the average citizen."


That would be when the REAL boredom would set in.

"No matter how many times I see Weasely Clark, the man just doesn't look right. He always looks like he is crazy."

There's a very good reason for that.

Do I hear a second to the motion that we make Anonymoussierra a national treasure?

I understand. Faith, as always, is a personal and private matter, and although I'd like to rely on faith as little as possible in politics, such may be impossible. If nothing else, I've seen many upon whom I wouldn't bestow my trust.

Hardly a week goes by that doesn't bring a decision from a federal court or the Supreme Court that causes paroxysms of wonder and disgust at what has been done by that court to the remaining shreds of our Constitutional Rights. The one thing that conservatives do agree on, however, is that the maiming and distortion of that wondrous document, the Constitution, is caused mainly by activist judges usurping the powers of not only the other two branches of government but of the Constitution itself. Too many of our "Living Document" decisions result in what I can only think of as the excreta from such an organism, and that applies to the convenient finding of "privacy," to uphold an otherwise untenable position as well as it does the taking of private property for the use of another private entity. Decisions such as these can only be arrived at by highly trained and expert individuals who will seriously entertain the argument of, "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."

The fact that these decisions emanate from top graduates of ivy league colleges and universities fails to allay my misgivings, nor am I soothed by the fact that before being seated on the Supreme Court they had impeccable credentials, paper trails and other indicia of a conservative bent. Nominees from Warren to Souter, appointed because of their impressive conservative credentials have, about half the time, proved to be something else entirely once seated. We could do as well flipping a coin. That being so, I'm surprised by the caterwauling of protest from the conservative side that Miers doesn't have the same attributes and credentials which, in the past, have demonstrated such spectacular unreliability.

That said, I must admit that when President Bush was given a chance for a second nomination, I was pulling for Janice Brown. I basked in the thought of the committee attack dogs unleashing their vitriol on the accomplished daughter of a poor, black sharecropper. I looked forward, with eager anticipation, to the nuking of the filibuster of judicial nominations (another product of that Living Document). I could see, taste and feel the final humiliation of a democratic party which seems to have abanoned every American principle for the acquisition of power. It didn't happen.

What happened is that the President talked privately with 80 Senators and most likely was left with the hard fact that he had neither the 60 votes to overcome a filibuster nor the votes to invoke the nuclear option. Quite a quandry to someone who had promised to nominate strict constructionists to the courts, but that was the hand he was dealt and he chose to play it the best way he could to fulfill his promise. Notice, his promise was to nominate to the courts people who would not legislate from the bench and would be strict constructionists; he didn't promise to nominate anyone from a select list of schools nor anyone whose other credentials would be impressive. His promise was no more complex than the provisions of the Constitution he seeks to protect; and, as far as I can tell, he's attempting to make good that promise in spite of a spineless Senate, which has robbed him of a theoretical majority; democrats shrieking accusations of cronyism; and even members of his own base who, with varying degrees of rabidity. have received his solution with Rottweiler-like suspicion and distrust.

Restricting myself to only those things the President has actually done, I see no reason to reject this nominee. His other judicial appointments have, in my opinion, been excellent; and this is with the knowledge that there are no guarantees going in. No one can guarantee that Roberts is going to be a conservative, strict constructionist Chief Justice, nor can they guarantee that Miers or any replacement forced upon us would be. Such things, as Rummy says, are "unknowable." However, from the things I've seen President do, I believe he's true to his word and that he will act for the benefit of the country, and that if he promised to deliver a strict constructionist then, yes, I'll accept his opinion of someone he's known more than 10 years over the opinion of the most learned pundits clamoring for a clear record and a paper trail. I can see no reason to believe that, after all this time of telling us what he wants and using Miers to find and vet people who would fill the bill, he would suddenly do a left turn and push on us, for any reason, someone he didn't feel was the best he could provide given the circumstances. Yes, I will trust him that far because he's demonstrated he deserves it.

Do I wish he'd do more now to protect our borders? Yes. Do I wish he'd vetoed a few bills? Yes. But, as I said before, I'm resticting this to things he HAS done, and these gripes, complaints, or sore points aren't immediately applicable to the problem at hand. We don't have a perfect President and we never will, but I can compare him favorably with any (yes, any) great President of the past - including Reagan.

What does disappoint me is the number of people whom I've learned to respect now say that "They're outta here!" Meaning, I suppose, that they can no longer vote for the GOP, since the President's not running for anything. Unless that is an overstatement of disappointment that their particular favorites wasn't picked for the slot or the battle which they'd prepared for wasn't joined, then I beg to rethink the situation. The battle isn't between Republican and Democrat; it's betwen Conservative and liberal, or Good and Evil if you wish. Is that a fight you really want to abandon? If you don't like the GOP the way it is, I assure you, it's far easier to change it than to replace it. The ranks swelling any or all of the high-sounding third parties don't even elevate them to double digits. On the other hand, the Libertarian or Constitutionalist wings of the Republican party could very well be instrumental in making the GOP the conservative enclave we seek.