Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Idiot GOP Senate Set to Shaft Estrada?
rushlimbaugh ^ | 2/28/2003 | rushlimbaugh

Posted on 02/28/2003 5:57:59 PM PST by TLBSHOW

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 601-604 next last
To: TLBSHOW

I don't need any clearing up!

I think Estrada should should take himself out of the confirmation hearings, hire Ed Rollins, move to Calif.
and announce that he is running for Sen. against Boxer!

Speech impediment and all!!!!!
151 posted on 02/28/2003 11:00:20 PM PST by woodyinscc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
No crap!

Little Dassole wanted this fight, make him pay for it.. Make him and his buddies stand there like jackasses on CSPAN 24/7 in a real, live filibuster mumbling and trying to think of something eloquent to say all day and all night.

[/ Rant Off ]

Now, if you want my honest opinion of what's going on here.. I think it's the GOP overplaying it's hand.

I think they have intentionally not brought out the big guns on this because they are hoping to energize the base and flat out enrage Hispanic voters.. A case of "See, see..! See what the Democrats are doing to us?"

In the beginning, that's exactly what happened. But now it's getting ot the point that instead of angering people at the Democrats only, people are starting to throw barbs at the Republicans as well for being too soft and letting them turn this into an un-constitutional circus.

If they back down on this, Conservatives will be just as mad at the Republicans as they are at the Democrats. Remember Trent Lott? So does everyone else, they don't remember him fondly and the reason they don't is because he wasn't aggressive when that's what the situation warranted.

152 posted on 02/28/2003 11:18:52 PM PST by Jhoffa_ (Jhoffa_X)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: woodyinscc

Estrada has a speech impediment?

What kind?

153 posted on 02/28/2003 11:19:51 PM PST by Jhoffa_ (Jhoffa_X)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: deport
Not correct. Cloture is based on the number of members actually present. Say they get a filibuster going and a few senators leave town for the weekend. Snow storm, quorum call, and 75 Senators are present. The cloture vote would require 45 affirmative votes (3/5ths).
154 posted on 02/28/2003 11:37:17 PM PST by capitan_refugio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: deport
I have have to correct myself upon further reflection. Rule 22 contains language about 3/5ths of those duly sworn, taking into account "vacancies." Whereas, all other voting thresholds apply to the members present, it may be than in Riddick (the Senate Rule Book) that cloture is given an absolute number. There is also a thirty hour rule about showing up or continued debate.

I'll need to do a little more research in Riddick back at the office. Until then, I stand corrected.

So I'll throw this into the blend: If, at a quorum call, the Republicans can obtain a 2/3rds majority of members present they can amend the rules!

155 posted on 02/28/2003 11:54:02 PM PST by capitan_refugio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
Then I saw all the naysayers and decided not to waste my time. I had also heard last night that Garrett had taken quotes out of context, but no way was I going to say anything.

Put me in the 24/7 filibuster category too. The initial Fox story has been bugging me for 2 days now, and unfortunately I haven't been able to spend much time on FR to get the real skinny. So were those quotes (Santurom, etc.) correct, taken out of context, or what? A turnaround in strategy?

Guess I'll get back to my thread-surfing, have another cuppa, and try to get all caught up on this one.

156 posted on 03/01/2003 5:01:21 AM PST by truthkeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Thorne
I'd just enjoy the challenge phase of the whole thing. Can you picture 'Sheets' Byrd if you walked up and slapped him with a gauntlet?

What a visual. I'd like to just slap him, period.

157 posted on 03/01/2003 5:03:04 AM PST by truthkeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
Major Garrett wrote a hit piece on Republicans and it was not a trial balloon. Senator Frist doesn't operate that way -- he is above board and filled with integrity. He doesn't play the trial balloon game

I just now caught your post about Garrett. What's up with this guy? He was a reporter at CNN for years, correct?

158 posted on 03/01/2003 5:08:50 AM PST by truthkeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo; Howlin; cyncooper
only by Howlin and cyncooper posting and linking to the 2:00 p.m. discussion did I learn this was wrong info.

A link to the discussion, please? (Still trying to get caught up over here...)

159 posted on 03/01/2003 5:13:34 AM PST by truthkeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
Actually it has turned out to be a good thing IMO because it allows things to get aired out and cleared up.

Exactly. It gave you a chance to vent and me a chance to get caught up, didn't it? ;-)

160 posted on 03/01/2003 5:24:33 AM PST by truthkeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: woodyinscc
The poster knew the heading was not right when he posted it!!!!

Oh, good Lord. I guess the Thought Police really are here. Are you saying he should have CHANGED the title to something he liked better? That is frowned upon here, and one of the fastest ways to get your post pulled. How long have you been on FR, anyway?

161 posted on 03/01/2003 5:30:07 AM PST by truthkeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: truthkeeper; Howlin; cyncooper
go to post 6, and then down .... there are links to show that this mis-titled article was written based on wrong information, discussed, apparently, at length on Rush's show and the other thread (link provided at #6 on this thread)...and, I'm sure, Howlin and cyncooper can provide more info as I was not part of the thread discussion or even knowledge of the thread content until last night...
162 posted on 03/01/2003 5:39:22 AM PST by nicmarlo (** UNDER GOD **)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo
Thank you. I've been reading my head off over here, trying to fill in all the details (thanks, PKM). I'd better hurry up and finish, gotta get to work!
163 posted on 03/01/2003 5:47:11 AM PST by truthkeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo
It's mob mentality at work. I wonder if the mob in this case realizes how ridiculous it is making itself look.
164 posted on 03/01/2003 5:51:26 AM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Thorne
The point is, Byron York had the "the story is wrong" story on the NRO website LONG before Rush ran with it. Look, Rush can't read or see everything, but this is two days in a row that he had a story that was either wrong or retracted (he had some challenges on the Maine National Guard story).

I think ANY story that suggests the Republicans are "spineless" needs to be triple checked, because there is a rumor mill, often fed here at FreeRepublic, that LOVES to portray the GOP as "caving." Estrada will be confirmed.

165 posted on 03/01/2003 6:04:14 AM PST by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Again, though the point is that Rush's story was WRONG, and it was already proven wrong before he ran with it.
166 posted on 03/01/2003 6:05:32 AM PST by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: LS; TLBSHOW
I'm afraid I haven't followed this story closely enough to be able to say with confidence that the story is wrong. But, if it is wrong, there are certainly people on this thread arguing that position. So, don't you think posting this article did people here a service even if it turns out that the article is wrong?
167 posted on 03/01/2003 6:17:53 AM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
I think posting a story that is essentially false does no one any good.
168 posted on 03/01/2003 6:23:19 AM PST by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: aristeides; TLBSHOW; PhiKapMom
I don't understand what the harm would be in calling for a cloture vote. Why not make the RAT senators go on the record as supporting the filibuster?

I don't see why calling for a cloture vote does any more for establishing a precedent than the RATs having this filibuster in the first place.

OK, I've read through all the posts and can't see where this question is answered. Rush goes on and on about it, but never explains how holding a cloture vote sets precedent, just that it takes 60 votes, super majority, yada...yada...yada.

Went to the US Senate Glossary page and found this...

"cloture - The only procedure by which the Senate can vote to place a time limit on consideration of a bill or other matter, and thereby overcome a filibuster. Under the cloture rule (Rule XXII), the Senate may limit consideration of a pending matter to 30 additional hours, but only by vote of three-fifths of the full Senate, normally 60 votes."

So I remain confused. I can see where obtaining cloture closes debate and moves on to a vote, but I don't see how cloture failure closes the debate. So cloture fails, doesn't the debate rage on? Is there some sort of Senate courtesy that failing cloture the debate is halted and Senators move on to new business? I'm missing the rules around what happens after a cloture vote is called and fails. Not the courtesy, the rule.

I've not heard Rush or anyone address this. PhiKapMom, you seem on top of all this, Can you explain?

169 posted on 03/01/2003 6:28:01 AM PST by laredo44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: laredo44
You are right. A failed cloture vote would only shut down the Estrada issue if the Republican leadership decides to shut it down. They would be perfectly within their rights to continue that discussion, which would mean continuing the filibuster.

I have repeatedly seen the argument made that having a cloture vote would set the precedent that 60 votes in the Senate are needed to confirm a judge. I do not understand that argument. I think the precedent has already been set, by the DemocRATs insisting on continuing the debate. And I think it is conceding the point to the Democrats by dropping the issue that would consolidate that precedent. It would even do so without having forced the RAT senators to go on the record as supporting the filibuster.

170 posted on 03/01/2003 6:48:24 AM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: LS
I think posting a story that is essentially false does no one any good.

Why not? Doesn't it give people the opportunity to point out and to learn that the story is false? How is that not doing good for people?

171 posted on 03/01/2003 6:50:45 AM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
Why not? Doesn't it give people the opportunity to point out and to learn that the story is false? How is that not doing good for people?

Isn't it more useful and doesn't it do more good to post stories with real news?

If I know a story is false, and post it anyway, especially with no disclaimers, IMO it makes me look stupid and the site look stupid, especially when the misleading and inflammatory headline persists.

Yes, the headline is Rush's fault, and I know we aren't supposed to change headlines - although the part in parentheses was added by the poster. A disclaimer that the article and/or headline were false or misleading could have just as easily been added, don't you think?

172 posted on 03/01/2003 7:03:26 AM PST by Amelia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Amelia
A disclaimer that the article and/or headline were false or misleading could have just as easily been added, don't you think?

It could have been added by someone who knew Limbaugh's story was false. I, for my part, am still not convinced that the story is false. I say we wait and see.

Don't the postings by the later posters claiming the story is false serve the same purpose an original disclaimer would have done?

And, if this story by Limbaugh is indeed false, then it was likely to deceive people. The discussion here makes that less likely at least for FReepers.

I detect here an atmosphere that more and more wants to shut down discussion and close our eyes to unpleasant facts. (Even if Limbaugh's article is false, it remains a fact that he published it. In fact, I believe it remains up on his site.)

173 posted on 03/01/2003 7:12:45 AM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: truthkeeper
I was referring to the substance in the heading!

I should have been more clear, but the poster knew what I meant!!
174 posted on 03/01/2003 7:13:36 AM PST by woodyinscc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Jhoffa_
He has a stuttering problem. I admire him, he has not let it bother him one bit!!
175 posted on 03/01/2003 7:20:44 AM PST by woodyinscc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
Rush I am sure will stay on top of the story this week.

Rats need to be mde to Filibuster 24/7
176 posted on 03/01/2003 7:51:01 AM PST by TLBSHOW (God Speed as Angels trending upward dare to fly Tribute to the Risk Takers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: capitan_refugio
So I'll throw this into the blend: If, at a quorum call, the Republicans can obtain a 2/3rds majority of members present they can amend the rules!


You may want to look at Standing Rules of the Senate, Rule V...... It requires a 24 hr written notice......
177 posted on 03/01/2003 8:04:46 AM PST by deport (Where fools rush in..........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: deport
Note that, under Rule V, the notice is not required to amend a rule if the amendment is by unanimous consent. So I guess each party needs to be sure always to have at least one reliable member present whenever the Senate is in session.

I assume that amendments of rules are subject to filibustering. If that's true, it means that you need to have at least 60 senators on board to amend a rule.

178 posted on 03/01/2003 8:09:38 AM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
In fact he wrote it and didn't put it on his site till way after 630 last night...

This is the message he wanted to get out. Check with Fox they have not offered a correction either except to change a day from a tuesday to a Monday.

Rush even said on the show why get rid of Lott. LOL

Best part is this will be at his web site for the public all weekend.
179 posted on 03/01/2003 8:10:47 AM PST by TLBSHOW (God Speed as Angels trending upward dare to fly Tribute to the Risk Takers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
If the Gop call for a cloture vote the constitution will be in effect well as Fox news says...

....

a "cloture" vote on an appellate court nominee would overturn more than two centuries of Senate precedent and rewrite the constitutional definition of "advise and consent."
180 posted on 03/01/2003 8:13:52 AM PST by TLBSHOW (God Speed as Angels trending upward dare to fly Tribute to the Risk Takers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
a "cloture" vote on an appellate court nominee would overturn more than two centuries of Senate precedent and rewrite the constitutional definition of "advise and consent."

I don't understand that. Are you saying the filibuster of Abe Fortas was unconstitutional? Why isn't that a precedent?

181 posted on 03/01/2003 8:16:17 AM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: deport
here is the whole story from fox now...


Republicans Try to Break Filibuster on Estrada

Friday, February 28, 2003

WASHINGTON — Debate continues on the fate of President Bush's judicial nominee Miguel Estrada after Senate Republicans and the White House wrestled Thursday with a fateful choice — whether to call for a vote to break the Democratic filibuster or string out debate with no-near term hope of victory.





Calling for a vote is fraught with peril, but GOP Senate leaders say they plan to do it, they just aren't sure when.

The vote will be legislative history. The decision to call for a "cloture" vote on an appellate court nominee would overturn more than two centuries of Senate precedent and rewrite the constitutional definition of "advise and consent."

Republicans would need 60 votes to break the filibuster and they know they don't have them. The move toward a defeat on the floor next week could doom Estrada, one of Bush's lawyers in the Supreme Court case that determined his presidency.

In an exclusive interview with Fox News, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said he sees no other options but to press for a vote to break the Democrats' filibuster. A decision is expected Monday and a vote could come as early as mid-week next week.

"The ball is in the Democrats' court and they've chosen to play in a way that to get a filibuster to be broken, our only procedural move can be a cloture vote," Frist said. "Our goal is to have him confirmed and we will continue to use every procedural tool we possibly can. We certainly won't be voting on cloture tomorrow we may early part of next week."

But Frist emphasized that a vote to break the filibuster would not mark the end of the Estrada struggle.

"I would think the battle is just beginning. At that juncture, we would know who we need to talk to. I've got a feeling, I've got a sense that Democrats are entrenched, and our goal is to pull them out of those trenches. It may take a few days. It may take a few weeks — it may take months — but it's my goal to pull them out of those trenches," Frist said.

So far, Republicans are only guaranteed 55 votes to confirm Estrada, who would be the first Hispanic on the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia. If there were no filibuster, that would be enough to get him confirmed.

"The last thing we want to do is to raise the bar for this particular nominee to 60 votes. Obviously, we can't stay on this issue forever," said Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., speaking with a tone of defeat already expressed by several Republicans.

"Miguel Estrada could lose," said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.

"I feel sorry for his family. I feel sorry for him. I only hope that if they succeed in denying him this, that he will not assume that we are like that," said Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M.

Democrats said they would drop their filibuster if Estrada would answer more questions about his judicial philosophy.

The Justice Department also turned over internal memos Estrada wrote as a deputy solicitor general in the Clinton Justice Department. Every living solicitor general — seven total — opposes turning over working memos.

Democrats also denied that their actions are in any way hindering the work of the Senate.

"We know we have a problem with the Estrada nomination, but we're not trying to delay it in any way. We've allowed the committees to go forward, we've tried to cooperate with the majority leader anytime he has other legislation to bring forward, and we'll continue to do that," said Senate Minority Whip Harry Reid, D-Nev.

Fox News' Major Garrett contributed to this report.

http://foxnews.com/story/0,2933,79845,00.html

182 posted on 03/01/2003 8:17:09 AM PST by TLBSHOW (God Speed as Angels trending upward dare to fly Tribute to the Risk Takers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
for a real good read check out these...this is what is happening.

The Senate, the President, and Judges

The Seventeenth Amendment in giving Senators the power to by- pass state interests and pander to citizen constituency interests only heightens and hastens the march to socialism. Our nation has different interests as has been explained previously and to remain a republic we must have separate powers looking after those interests.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/843984/posts



183 posted on 03/01/2003 8:24:33 AM PST by TLBSHOW (God Speed as Angels trending upward dare to fly Tribute to the Risk Takers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
another classic from O'Reilly...here

Hey, it's personal (If you can't win the debate, smear your opponent)
townhall ^ | March 1, 2003 | Bill O'Reilly

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/854348/posts?page=1

184 posted on 03/01/2003 8:25:50 AM PST by TLBSHOW (God Speed as Angels trending upward dare to fly Tribute to the Risk Takers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: Jonez712
if you keep the dems up all night then you keep the repubs up all night too...they don't like that
185 posted on 03/01/2003 8:30:20 AM PST by Bill Davis FR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW; chnsmok
So I was wrong and the fox story was wrong where I based my thoughts on this from this.

But was I?

This is why the bashing. He earns it with unsubstantiated innuendo. "But was I?" hanging out there as if he knows something we all don't.

The fact is, the thread the apology was on (and may I say that I pointed out immediately that Rush was under a false impression and this poster mocked that, yet he didn't see fit to apologize to me personally after Rush admitted he had, indeed, been under a false impression), that original thread was based on a NRO story tht outlined Republican strategy on getting the Estrada nomination through. This Rush article would have been more appropriately tacked onto that thread.

186 posted on 03/01/2003 8:34:57 AM PST by cyncooper (God Be With President Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
I think it's true that a Supreme Court made up of justices to whose appointment a Senate that truly represented states had consented would never have made the anti-state decisions that were made by the Warren Court in particular. I also think that the 17th Amendment seriously weakened the whole system of checks and balances: we now have two Houses of Congress whose members are elected directly, a president who is also elected, although with some elements of indirect election, and a federal judiciary staffed with judges appointed by elected presidents and consented to by elected senators. Everybody's appointment is linked too closely to popular election, and so the different branches of the federal government, instead of checking one another, now much more often operate in concert: Congress, in particular, prefers to evade responsibility by giving the power to reach unpopular decisions to the courts and the agencies, and the courts and agencies happily cooperate.

Since there is really no hope of reversing the 17th Amendment -- democracy is too much a part of the Zeitgeist -- I would restore checks by going even further in the direction of direct democracy. I would appoint the members of the lower houses of legislatures, including the U.S. House of Representatives, by lot instead of by election, thereby giving a veto power over federal legislation to a body made up of average citizens, rather than elected politicians.

187 posted on 03/01/2003 8:35:29 AM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Bill Davis FR
That is really sad and not to mention the GOP might have to work weekends. LOL
188 posted on 03/01/2003 8:36:38 AM PST by TLBSHOW (God Speed as Angels trending upward dare to fly Tribute to the Risk Takers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

OK, It is official I am confused. Who will be filibustering?

PS I resent having to learn how to spell filibuster!
189 posted on 03/01/2003 8:40:32 AM PST by Diana Rose (I hate all things french)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: aristeides; Fred Mertz; deport
reversing 17th amendment is a mission of freerepublic right here,,,,,,

We call for the repeal of the 17th amendment, which will reverse the independence of the Senate and reestablish the Senate as a representative of the State governments, as intended by the Founding Fathers. This arrangement was intended to be a critical check against illegal federal expansion over the States, and the people residing in the various States, and will act to return the powers not granted to the federal government, as enumerated in the Constitution, to the states.




http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cache:Z8ONsLYxLmQC:www.freerepublic.com/about.htm+reversing+the+17th+Amendment+&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
190 posted on 03/01/2003 8:41:23 AM PST by TLBSHOW (God Speed as Angels trending upward dare to fly Tribute to the Risk Takers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
I agree that removing the 17th Amendment is highly desirable, but I just don't think it's within the realm of what's politically possible.
191 posted on 03/01/2003 8:43:03 AM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Bill Davis FR
if you keep the dems up all night then you keep the repubs up all night too...they don't like that

FYI Frist and Hatch have stated firmly that going 24/7 most definitely is an option they WILL employ if need be. They are reserving that option for now.

Perhaps you missed the late night session the other night when lots of Republicans were on hand and just a few dems. In fact they had to call hrc from her lair. My eyes were spared, fortunately, as Freeper descriptions of her appearance were quite creepy.

192 posted on 03/01/2003 8:48:36 AM PST by cyncooper (God Be With President Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
With what is going on with this (Idiot GOP Senate Set to Shaft Estrada? )

It should be top priority......
193 posted on 03/01/2003 8:49:05 AM PST by TLBSHOW (God Speed as Angels trending upward dare to fly Tribute to the Risk Takers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
employ if need be

;;;

it need be and that is already a fact.
194 posted on 03/01/2003 8:51:20 AM PST by TLBSHOW (God Speed as Angels trending upward dare to fly Tribute to the Risk Takers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Not in the opinion of your betters.
195 posted on 03/01/2003 8:52:35 AM PST by cyncooper (God Be With President Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
"I, for my part, am still not convinced that the story is false."

Even though Senators Hatch and Santorum say it is?
196 posted on 03/01/2003 8:52:46 AM PST by sabe@q.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
How many state legislatures are controlled by the democrats? Would this be an Executive appt by the State, appt by the State Senate, approved by the Gov..... who would submit the Nominations?
197 posted on 03/01/2003 8:54:11 AM PST by deport (Where fools rush in..........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: marajade; cyncooper
The mere fact that my so-called "betters" assert something is true is not enough by itself to convince me that it is.
198 posted on 03/01/2003 8:56:35 AM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
You know the Reps can't get to 51 because two of our senators won't be there... You are misleading again...
199 posted on 03/01/2003 8:57:08 AM PST by sabe@q.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
Not in the opinion of your betters.


LOL.... but only his opinion is what matters...... remember he knows it all because he has the 'gift'.......... It's very hard to keep the turnip truck in the garage.
200 posted on 03/01/2003 8:58:22 AM PST by deport (Where fools rush in..........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 601-604 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson