The above paragraph reminds me of the following:
Dr. Sidney Freidman [speaking about Frank Burns, who is being held hostage by guest star John Ritter]:
"One of the best in the business, a terrific doctor, and a great human being ..."
Posted on 04/03/2012 7:34:45 AM PDT by Kaslin
well the only thing I can say is GWB was set to give us harriet meyers and we changed his mind. we’re just going to have to watch romney like a hawk. it would be nice if we could trust the pols to do what’s right for the people, but it doesn’t look like it’s going to happen any time soon.
What answer have I posited? None... I merely raised a question, one that really needs to be examined.
The question is, "Given Romney's track record of judicial appointments while governor of Massachusetts, and the equally well-known fact that Senate Republicans have been essentially rubber-stamping SCOTUS picks which are questionable at best believing that the POTUS should have who he/she wants regardless of what it would mean for the posterity of the nation, how can we be so dead certain that what he would do, and what the Senate would subsequently rubber-stamp, would in any measure be superior?" I don't have an answer to that, do you?
As for anything else, you are making assumptions which are not necessarily valid. I've never stated here, or elsewhere, that I would not vote for Romney under any circumstances, and challenge you to demonstrate that I have done so, if you believe it. I'm not pouting, I'm asking legitimate questions, and I deeply resent your attitude, and crude attempts to manipulate, and herd me. I may well end up voting for Romney, and man I feel I can in no manner trust, but one thing you *can* be sure of, it won't be because of your pathetic tantrum here...
the infowarrior
There's the rub. "WE", meaning conservatives in the rank and file changed his mind, well before it got to the 'advise and consent' of the Senate. Had she actually gotten before the Senate we would be looking at Associate Justice Harriet Myers, and I don't think anyone on this forum doubts that.
the infowarrior
If trends continue, the Supreme Court is going to issue some rulings which are so patently illegitimate that it will be necessary for people and state governments to openly denounce them as such and call upon people to ignore them. While it would be better for the Supreme Court to reverse direction rather than issuing such rulings, if that's not going to happen I'd rather a ruling come down as "4 conservative, 3 'legitimate' liberals, and 2 radicalist bozos who overtly denounce the Constitution", than "4 conservatives, 3 liberals, and 2 RINO appointees who back the liberals".
“We have a SCOTUS which takes the Constitution seriously by a 1 vote margin, which is why I will be forced to vote for Romney in November instead of sitting out the election. I’m afraid the next POTUS may be able to nominate judges to SCOTUS and I sure as hell don’t want that POTUS to be the kenyan.”
A big ditto from catnipman on that good buddy! We’re one vote away from total destruction of the Constitution and all personal liberty.
I literally will vote for ANYONE but Obama!
The above paragraph reminds me of the following:
Dr. Sidney Freidman [speaking about Frank Burns, who is being held hostage by guest star John Ritter]:
"One of the best in the business, a terrific doctor, and a great human being ..."
The fact that you answered my post and they way you answered seemed to point that you weren't going to vote for Romeney
But after last night it should be obvious that he will be the nominee, so let me ask you the question
If Romney is the nominee will you vote for him?
Romney appoints Democrats to the bench. You’ll get another Souter, Stevens, Blackmun, Brennan, or Earl Warren. Go ahead and vote for the GOP’s latest spoonful of seaweed.
I don't like being manipulated, neither by the folks that are constantly pushing this loser down my throat, nor by you. Have a nice life...
the infowarrior
Yeah - what the heck is wrong with you, billva? How dare you bother people on a political forum with minutiae like asking who they would pick to run their country - the gall!!! (Not Charles de Gualle, mind you - he’s foreign born and currently dead)
>>> (Not Charles de Gualle, mind you - he’s foreign born and currently dead) <<<
That’s never stopped the democrats before.
the infowarrior
New name for you, minister of disinformation. You don't like being manipulated, but the last response to me was very evasive and when asked point blank about your intentions you bail out.
I am not trying to manipulate you but asking you a direct question is not manipulation.
Your answer though is about what I expected. Just don't post again that you have not said you won't vote for Romney, because your response here makes it perfectly clear.
You might as well send a donation to Obama and work on his committee.
Pathetic
Good question, especially people who claim they haven't said they wouldn't vote for Romney but when ask if they will make disingenuous claims about being manipulated and continue to avoid.
What I think we should start here is a support Obama topic for all the folks who claim to be concerned about their country but won't vote for the obvious nominee against Obama.
This place is filled with hypocrites.
Just about every major part of the healthcare bill that Obama says "Americans want" (20 somethings on their parent's insurance, pre-conditions) Bush vetoed.
He did as much as he could for as long as he could and deserves more credit than he gets from "conservatives".
Bullsquat! *YOU* never even bothered to answer *my* question at all, so you are being manipulative whether you choose to admit it, or not.
I'll put it to you this way, so you can possibly understand *exactly* where I'm coming from: Elections in this country are held by *secret* ballot, whether you like it, or not. My choice for president is *my* business, and most emphatically not that of K-Rove, Inc's. And, if you don't believe that K-Rove and Co aren't monitoring this forum, to see how their little game is going over, you are incredibly naive, are working for them, and thus no conservative, or both simultaneously. There is absolutely no way in h-ll I'm about to *publicly* commit to Romney where they could see it whether I plan on voting for him, or not.
Now, I've answered *your* question, will you have the common courtesy to answer mine, to wit: Given Romney's track record of judicial appointments as Governor of Massachusetts, and the GOP Senators long tradition of voting to affirm whoever *any* president desires to appoint to SCOTUS, do you really believe that his SCOTUS picks are a reason to discount his other *troublesome* qualities?
Take your time...
the infowarrior
I'll put it to you this way, so you can possibly understand *exactly* where I'm coming from: Elections in this country are held by *secret* ballot, whether you like it, or not. My choice for president is *my* business, and most emphatically not that of K-Rove, Inc's. And, if you don't believe that K-Rove and Co aren't monitoring this forum, to see how their little game is going over, you are incredibly naive, are working for them, and thus no conservative, or both simultaneously. There is absolutely no way in h-ll I'm about to *publicly* commit to Romney where they could see it whether I plan on voting for him, or not.
Now, I've answered *your* question, will you have the common courtesy to answer mine, to wit: Given Romney's track record of judicial appointments as Governor of Massachusetts, and the GOP Senators long tradition of voting to affirm whoever *any* president desires to appoint to SCOTUS, do you really believe that his SCOTUS picks are a reason to discount his other *troublesome* qualities?
Take your time...
the infowarrior
Misinfo warrior in your own words that is a Bullsquat answer
To the first part of your statement I didn't really expect or care if you answered the question. However from all your posts it seems you will be in the stay home and pout crowd, that includes this one.
Then you made a statement that you seemed to want to say you haven't made up your mind. So I asked you, your response pretty much speaks for it's self.
As to your question in the latter part of your post I will answer with two comments. First Romney's past actions trouble me but I certainly do believe people can evolve in their outlooks and I believe that with a Republican Congress Romney will act in accordance with what he is saying on the campaign trail.
Secondly I believe that when it comes to a choice between Obama and Romney it's a no brainer.
So you would rather have had the Democrat’s original prescription drug bill before Bush gutted it and made it operate thru the private sector instead of government? And you prefer Ted Kennedy’s original education bill before Bush changed it to include standards for school achievement and teacher merits?
Just about every major part of the healthcare bill that Obama says “Americans want” (20 somethings on their parent’s insurance, pre-conditions) Bush vetoed.
He did as much as he could for as long as he could and deserves more credit than he gets from “conservatives”.
______________
Deb, I’d take W. over any democrat, any day. I also stated in my post, that I am thankful for his appointees to the federal bench (Supreme Court and otherwise).
He did some things I didn’t like. Whether this makes me a “conservative” in others’ eyes or not, I really could not care less.
Back to my original point, Romney, in my view would nominate better justices than Obama...by a long shot.
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.