Posted on 02/12/2007 12:02:08 PM PST by PhiKapMom
That's the dumbest thing I ever heard. If you actually believe that's what I said, I suggest you enroll in Preschool.
And your link proves exactly what I said, Specter said he didn't think the President would appoint justices who would overturn RvW. The MSM interpreted it as a threat.
So you are wrong yet again.
I've just utterly destroyed your first two assertions.
If you changed "Your first two assertions" with "My own credibility", then yes, you are right.
Nonsense!
One half-wit recently stated: "Any principle that requires you to do nothing about it, but instead, to just proclaim it loudly, is no principle at all in my book," and that's a FAR dumber thing to read.
And your link proves exactly what I said, Specter said he didn't think the President would appoint justices who would overturn RvW. The MSM interpreted it as a threat.
Sure, genius. The MSM was just dying to start a fight between the only pro-choice republican with any chance of derailing judicial nominations, and the president who ran on it.
What did you snort for breakfast?
Furthermore, I can give many, many more links that prove you are full of el toro poopoo.
And pray tell, what was all the outrage that almost cost Specter his chairmanship if it wasn't his RvW statements? How can you possibly have the ability to write without the corresponding ability to read?
Show some dignity.
I like how you get proven wrong, but don't even bother to slow down and think.
Your position is too important I guess.
How about this one, Baghdad Bob?
Sen. Arlen Specter had better watch out. The day after President Bush's election triumph, Republican Sen. Arlen Specter -- who is expected to be chosen chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee -- fired a warning shot across the bow of the ship of state: "The president is well aware of what happened, when a bunch of his nominees were sent up, with the filibusters. And I would expect the president to be mindful of the considerations which I am mentioning."
As one of the few Republicans who opposed President Reagan nominee Robert Bork for the Supreme Court, and President George W. Bush's nominee for the federal bench (and now senator) Jeff Sessions, Mr. Specter's words are quite easy to decode. He is warning the president that he will block or oppose conservative nominations, no matter how qualified, for the high benches.
http://www.freerepublic.com/^http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20041104-085523-9054r
The really shameful thing is found your way to FreeRepublic to taint the level of discussion. Debate with you is like trying to discuss Algebra with a child that insists "you can't do math with letters!"
You keep proving my point again and again.
You can say whatever you want, but Specter simply didn't say what you said he said. And you have proved it. Again. With your own quote.
No, that's the part you don't get. Absolutely no one who knows anything about realpolitik is under any misapprehension as to what Specter was saying.
You think you can claim virginity because the only sex was oral.
That's a rather interesting interpretation from a historical perspective seeming as how he ACTUALLY VOTED FOR ROBERTS AND ALITO.
After the deal he made as a result of the conservative campaign to have Frist strip him of his chairmanship.
This is not a Soviet Republic. You can't make up history to suit your agenda.
And you have proof of this?
This is not a Soviet Republic. You can't make up history to suit your agenda.
Pot, meet kettle.
Yeah. It was in "Congressional Deal Quarterly," genius.
Try reading any story about Specter from the day after the election at the beginning of November of 2004, then read the Specter stories at the end of the month.
I'm not going to feed it to you with a friggin' spoon. If you need more than what I've given you already, you'll just have to stay stupid.
Thank you for conceding you don't have any proof.
Do you have a brain tumour?
I conceded no such thing.
What I'm saying is I'm not going to gather and post fifty or sixty different links to demonstrate you're of the same mind as a holocaust denier.
Water that is 2% cyanide will still kill you.
Should we take this as a threat or a juvenile post?
A conservative voting record at 98% according to whom?
sorry, I prefer my water at 100% pure, the other 2% can still kill you.
Being a New Yorker I can tell you that Rudy was we could have gotten at the time and compared to Dinkins as far as mayors go was a slight bit better. He was only slightly less mediocre than the guy he replaced.
Conservatism is a movement, NOT a political party. My loyalty are to the principles of that movement NOT to the GOP or other pretenders that hide wolves in their closets and strut them out and try to convince us they are sheep. Between Rudy and Hillary, I see no difference at all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.