God Save Georges Brain

[nbfcfireman]

I am by no means religious, but I think that "god" skipped president bush recently when he was handing out brains.

I dont have any problem with Bush appointing a woman to the Supreme Ct first of all. My problem is with the fact that this lady, who I am sure is an excellent attorney and would make an excellent judge, has never been a judge.

We dont let model airplane pilots fly passenger jets without taking the classes and learning the stuff and practicing on smaller jets that may only hold a few people.

However, we are now going to let someone be one of the most powerfull judges in the county that has never even been one of the least powerful judges in the county.

Remeber...this lady, along with the other nut that was appointed, will have the power to influence and shape the laws and the life of millions of people world wide.
Why do I think that this is going to be BAD. And not just for the liberals but for everyone!!!

I just fealt the need to rant for a minute...Fell free to rip me a new one now for being an unpatriotic liberal yuppy

[Steamer]

It's by no means the first time it's happened. A list of the ones that I could find:
1. William Rehnquist Asst. U.S. Attorney General 1972-2005 Nixon (Assoc., 1972), Reagan (Chief, 1986)
2. Lewis Powell President of the American Bar Ass'n, Private Practice 1972-1987 Nixon
3. Abe Fortas Private Practice 1965-1969 Johnson
4. Byron White Deputy U.S. Attorney General 1962-1993 Kennedy
5. Arthur Goldberg U.S. Secretary of Labor 1962-1965 Kennedy
6. Earl Warren Governor of California 1953-1969 Eisenhower
7. Tom Clark U.S. Attorney General 1949-1967 Truman
8. Harold Burton U.S. Senator 1945-1958 Truman
9. Robert Jackson U.S. Attorney General 1941-1954 F. Roosevelt
10. James Francis Byrnes U.S. Senator 1941-1942 F. Roosevelt
11. William O. Douglas Chairman of the S.E.C. 1939-1975 F. Roosevelt
12. Felix Frankfurter Asst. U.S. Attorney, Asst. Secretary of War, Prof. of Law at Harvard 1939-1962 F. Roosevelt
13. Stanley Forman Reed U.S. Solicitor General 1938-1957 F. Roosevelt
14. Owen Josephus Roberts Special Counsel in "Teapot Dome" investigation and trials 1930-1945 Hoover
15. Harlan Fiske Stone U.S. Attorney General 1925-1946 Coolidge (Assoc., 1925), F. Roosevelt (Chief, 1941)
16. Pierce Butler County Attorney, Private Practice 1923-1939 Harding
17. George Sutherland U.S. Senator 1922-1938 Harding
18. Louis Brandeis Private Practice 1916-1939 Wilson
19. James Clark McReynolds U.S. Attorney General 1914-1941 Wilson
20. Charles Evans Hughes Governor of New York, U.S. Secretary of State 1910-1916, 1930-1941 Taft (Assoc., 1910), Hoover (Chief, 1930)
21. William Henry Moody U.S. Attorney General 1906-1910 T. Roosevelt
22. George Shiras, Jr Private Practice 1892-1903 Harrison
23. Melville Fuller Private Practice 1888-1910 Cleveland
24. Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar U.S. Secretary of the Interior, U.S. Senator 1888-1893 Cleveland
25. Joseph Philo Bradley Private Practice 1870-1892 Grant
26. Salmon P. Chase U.S. Treasury Secretary 1864-1873 Lincoln
27. Samuel Freeman Miller Private Practice 1862-1890 Lincoln
28. Noah Haynes Swayne U.S. Attorney for Ohio, Ohio Legislator 1862-1881 Lincoln
29. Nathan Clifford Maine & U.S. Attorney General 1858-1881 Buchanan
30. John Archibald Campbell Alabama Legislator 1853-1861 Pierce
31. Benjamin Robbins Curtis Massachusetts Legislator 1851-1857 Fillmore
32. John McKinley U.S. Senator 1838-1852 Van Buren
33. Roger Brooke Taney Maryland & U.S. Attorney General, U.S. Treasury Secretary 1836-1864 Jackson
34. Henry Baldwin U.S. Congressman 1830-1844 Jackson
35. Joseph Story Speaker of Mass. House of Reps., U.S. Congressman 1812-1845 Madison
36. John Marshall U.S. Secretary of State 1801-1835 Adams
37. Bushrod Washington Virginia House of Delegates, Reporter for Virginia Court of Appeals 1799-1829 Adams
38. William Paterson Governor of New Jersey 1793-1806 Washington
39. James Wilson Delegate to 1st & 2nd Continental Congress, Co-Drafter of U.S. Constitution 1789-1798 Washington
40. John Jay President of the Continental Congress, U.S. Secretary of Foreign Affairs 1789-1795 Washington
41. John Rutledge Governor of South Carolina 1789-1791, 1795 Washington

You'll also notice that since the Depression era, Democrats appointed 10 Justices without judicial experience versus 3 times for Republicans, so rant away.

Out of curiosity, why do you consider Roberts a "nut"?

[nbfcfireman]

It is wrong in both cases dems or reps. no matter who does it. the us judicial system should not be a testing ground for judges. WHere did you get that list. I was aware of a few others but didnt know a list of that length existed. On the nuts comment -I recind that- however. I do see strong religious views as nuts

[Steamer]

It is wrong in both cases dems or reps. no matter who does it. the us judicial system should not be a testing ground for judges. WHere did you get that list. I was aware of a few others but didnt know a list of that length existed. On the nuts comment -I recind that- however. I do see strong religious views as nuts
You brought up the liberal issue, and since the term liberal is far more related to the Democratic Party than the Republican Party, I merely pointed out that it was done far more frequently by the Democrats.

While I agree it can be controversial, it seems that when backgrounds are properly done, the system allows it to be done without undue risk. You can't make someone "believe or not believe" in anything. A Supreme Court Justice has to disassociate themselves from their personal beliefs, and rule on issues based on the Constitution and how it applies to the law or case under review. It's when judges fail to do their jobs as the Constitution intends and become judicial activists that things go wrong. Case in point was the recent case involving eminent domain. This is all a different discussion however.

As for the list, I found it through several legal websites like Findlaw.com

[EFD840]

Just a couple of random thoughts...

First, some very respected justices are on the list Steamer posted so obviously previous experience doesn't always equate to job performance.

Second, the beliefs and values of appointees that haven't served a long time as judges are often easier to determine. This is particularly true of nominees that come from the political area. They will usually have a proven record of taking positions on issues. Canons of judicial ethics usually keep judges at all levels from taking public positions.

Finally, it isn't a bad thing to have someone that's lived in the real world on the court. The appointment of judges is IMHO the most important role a president performs. The decisions those panels render impact our lives every single day but a judge that 'comes up through the ranks' may well have been detached from the real world for 20+ years by the time they're appointed to the court. It is much like what you find in the academic world. If you've ever been to college, you know what I mean. ;) Having someone on the panel that remembers what it is like to work for a living can go a long way towards injecting real world reason into the bodies' deliberations.

[DennisTheMenace]

From today's letters to the editor in the Washington Post
Before Harriet Miers went to the White House, she was listed in the National Law Journal as one of the 100 most powerful lawyers and one of the 50 most powerful female lawyers in the United States. She held top positions in the American Bar Association and chaired the board of editors of the ABA Journal, a publication that focuses on all aspects of the law, including the supposed lofty and "different" issues relating to constitutional law.

Members of the Texas bar elected Ms. Miers as their president, and she helped build bridges between the law profession and the community, including performing important work on access to justice for the poor.

These credentials surely put her in the top 1 percent of the million-plus lawyers in the country in terms of distinction and accomplishments.

Ms. Miers has built a law practice, managed a major law firm, handled many and varied cases in state and federal courts, served the profession at the highest level and was an elected official of one of our largest cities.

If these experiences do not qualify her for the Supreme Court, then that court has become an elitist club open to only a few with a narrow set of certain credentials. If this is true, it's a sad day for the court, our nation and the voice of reason.

SUSAN L. KARAMANIAN

Associate Dean for International
and Comparative Legal Studies
George Washington University Law School
Washington
I could not agree more. You don't have to have been a Battalion Chief to be a great Chief of the Department, you just need the right training, experiance and temperment, nothing that I have seen yet implies that Ms. Miers does not have those qualifications when it comes to sitting on the Supreme Court.

[jensam433]

the us judicial system should not be a testing ground for judges.

What do you call a failed lawyer?
Your Honor.

[DennisTheMenace]

What do you call a failed lawyer?
Your Honor.
:D :eek: :D

[Bones42]

I was never a firefighter until I became one.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

It is wrong in both cases dems or reps. no matter who does it. the us judicial system should not be a testing ground for judges. WHere did you get that list. I was aware of a few others but didnt know a list of that length existed. On the nuts comment -I recind that- however. I do see strong religious views as nuts

And I view people with strong anti-religious views as nuts.

Guess we're even up, huh? :rolleyes:

[nbfcfireman]

oh I am not anti religion, what ever floats your boat, ya know. I just am believe that religious zelots have done more to harm the world than they has to help the world.
But dont call me anti religion, I am only anti religion for myself, If it gives you the warm and fuzzy's then do it.

I would say dont express it in your political views BUT that is impossible. I express my athiest views in my political leanings and religios people will do the like.

I think that there is a median that can be reached though, one that does not impinge on any moderates views. The extremes views, liberal and conservative are one in the same, they do no one any good. But what is extreme to me might not be to another.

Thats all i am saying. Ill now let this thread run and I am sure change into calling me a devil worshiper and mutual bashing of ALL...hahahahaha

[Steamer]

Well, let's see...bitching about Bush choosing a person that wasn't a judge for an Associate Justice position fizzled, so let's go for bitching about religion. That's always good for a pointless argument. :rolleyes:

From two separate posts: I just fealt the need to rant for a minute...Fell free to rip me a new one now for being an unpatriotic liberal yuppyIll now let this thread run and I am sure change into calling me a devil worshiper and mutual bashing of ALL...hahahahaha
You're either intentionally trying to stir ****, or you're a masochist. In either case, I'm not taking the bait.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Neither am I, Steve. The last thing we need on here now is another troll.

[doughesson]

If being a Judge were a requirement for sitting on the Supreme Court,then how much time had you had as a firefighter before getting on your first department?
Before someone asks,I was DC I and II qualified in the Navy before I got out and 9 years later decided to try my hand at being a volunteer firefighter.Some experience and I have to translate what is being said to me to terms that I learned but it works out well.

[doughesson]

Even better:What do you call the lowest graduate at medical school?
Doctor.

What do you call a failed lawyer?
Your Honor.

[dmleblanc]

Well, the liberal Democrats need to recognize that the only reason we have gone down the list to Miers is because they refused to consider the first two candidates that were offered. If you keep attacking the qualified candidates, using every means at your disposal to discredit the candidate, put a negative spin on the candidate, dig up every parking ticket and overdue library book they've ever had and throw it in front of the media until they are forced to throw in the towel, well, yes, sooner or later you're going to have to work your way down the list to the less qualified candidates.

We can work our way down to the 86th candidate on the list and the Dems will attack, discredit, put a full time team of investigators on that person's case to find any impropriety or bad decision that person has ever made, and ultimately condemn that candidate as the the person who will bring the downfall of the Republic if they are placed on the bench.

Sooner or later they're going to have to accept somebody.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a great fan of Bush these days, but there just simply is not a candidate he can name who the Democrats will not rip to shreds....so if the Democrats so rabidly disapprove of the first 10 qualified candidates, why would they be surprised when #11 is not as good a choice as #1 was?

[Steamer]

Sooner or later they're going to have to accept somebody.

I keep waiting for my phone to ring. ;)

[medicmaster]

NBFC...you need to realize that you cannot come on here and discuss anything that might imply that George Bush is an idiot...there are some around here that will do nothing but jump on your back and start crying liberalism.

Even if the guy can't speak correctly, hires his unqualified friends, denies any involvement in something that makes him look bad, or any other million things he does to prove that he has no business running the country, you will ALWAYS be a liberal, left-wing freak to them...even if you don't consider yourself a Democrat or even DO AGREE with other Republican positions. That is what conservatives do...they refuse to see something from someone else's point of view, and only accept their own beliefs...anyone who disagrees with them is just worthless, stupid, scum.

With that being said...appointing Meirs was typical W cronyism at its best!

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

>>That is what conservatives do...they refuse to see something from someone else's point of view, and only accept their own beliefs...anyone who disagrees with them is just worthless, stupid, scum. <<

This is what conservatives do?

What about the discarded pile of female victims left by the liberal messiah, Bill Clinton. Every one of those women's lives were destroyed by that scum and then they were victimized a second time when they were trashed in the press by his minions.

What about crap like trying to bring John Robert's adopted son into the news during his lead up to the confirmation hearings? What about trying to bring his wife's religious views into it?

What about idiots like Chuckie Schumer trashing a legal genius like Judge Allito? He has a track record of moderate views and decisions. He is, by all accounts, a legal giant-as qualified as any person sitting there today. But Schumer brands him an extremist because he was nominated by a Republican Pres..

I could go on, but I am getting too angry. Scorched earth is a liberal game, pal.

[medicmaster]

George...you're fun to debate with!

"What about the discarded pile of female victims left by the liberal messiah, Bill Clinton. Every one of those women's lives were destroyed by that scum and then they were victimized a second time when they were trashed in the press by his minions."

Okay, I'll go with you on this one...as a public figure his actions were wrong. Definately not appropriate behavior for the leader of the free world...However...while he was getting his knob slobbed in the Oval Office, it did not affect how this country operated. (Let's also not forget that he was impeached...and acquitted by a republican controlled House.) I believe the person who started this thread was commenting on the fact that George Bush may not have made the best decision when it came to appointing a supreme court justice candidate who has no experience as a judge...not who is banging who.

As to the media onslought of John Robert's family, and Chuckie Schumer...it is all typical political game....wether it be the "liberals" or the "conservatives"...both are equally as guilty at one time or another.

Don't get yourself too worked up about...wouldn't want you to have a stroke.

Peace Out!

[Steamer]

(Let's also not forget that he was impeached...and acquitted by a republican controlled House.)
Actually he was acquitted by the Republican controlled Senate, just to be accurate. :D

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

George...you're fun to debate with!

"What about the discarded pile of female victims left by the liberal messiah, Bill Clinton. Every one of those women's lives were destroyed by that scum and then they were victimized a second time when they were trashed in the press by his minions."

Okay, I'll go with you on this one...as a public figure his actions were wrong. Definately not appropriate behavior for the leader of the free world...However...while he was getting his knob slobbed in the Oval Office, it did not affect how this country operated. (Let's also not forget that he was impeached...and acquitted by a republican controlled House.) I believe the person who started this thread was commenting on the fact that George Bush may not have made the best decision when it came to appointing a supreme court justice candidate who has no experience as a judge...not who is banging who.

As to the media onslought of John Robert's family, and Chuckie Schumer...it is all typical political game....wether it be the "liberals" or the "conservatives"...both are equally as guilty at one time or another.

Don't get yourself too worked up about...wouldn't want you to have a stroke.

Peace Out!

So as long as the world kept turning, ruining women's lives via sexual assault is not something that bothers you about a President, huh?

Wanna keep going? The liberals ar really treating Lt. Gov. Michael Steele well in Md., aren't they? You guys should sure be proud of that. After all, you are the party of racial equality and tolerance and all...

Maybe the person who started the thread was commenting on the nomination. You, as susual, came in here to stir up crap.

[medicmaster]

And I view people with strong anti-religious views as nuts.

Guess we're even up, huh? :rolleyes:

And this isn't "stirring up crap".

[medicmaster]

Actually he was acquitted by the Republican controlled Senate, just to be accurate. :D

Sorry, my bad!

[scfire86]

So as long as the world kept turning, ruining women's lives via sexual assault is not something that bothers you about a President, huh?




When did that happen? Willey was found to be an uncredible witness by Ken Starr, Paula Jones settled with the accused not admitting guilt, and Monica has always claimed the relationship was consensual.

But you knew all that....right?

[MrIrons]

When did that happen? Willey was found to be an uncredible witness by Ken Starr, Paula Jones settled with the accused not admitting guilt, and Monica has always claimed the relationship was consensual.

But you knew all that....right?

Slick Willys sexual escapades go much further than that.

But you knew all that....right?

[scfire86]

Slick Willys sexual escapades go much further than that.

But you knew all that....right?


Since you're near Missouri I have two words, "show me".

And why would you care anyway?

[MrIrons]

Since you're near Missouri I have two words, "show me".

And why would you care anyway?

Actually I am much closer to Illinois, Wisconsin and Minnesota. I guess it is allright for you to bash President Bush at will but heaven forbid someone say anything about Slick Willy. The Prince of liberals has a long trail of treating women like pieces of meat. If you are such a staunch supporter of Willy why dont you look it up?

And why would you care if I cared anyway???

[scfire86]

Actually I am much closer to Illinois, Wisconsin and Minnesota. I guess it is allright for you to bash President Bush at will but heaven forbid someone say anything about Slick Willy. The Prince of liberals has a long trail of treating women like pieces of meat. If you are such a staunch supporter of Willy why dont you look it up?

And why would you care if I cared anyway???


How do you know all this to be true? And you're a lot closer to MO than I. I don't care if people bash Clinton. The comment that started this accused him of a crime. Which as it turns out isn't true. But idiot conservatives keep spouting it as fact.

[SSTONER]

[SNIP]
Even if the guy can't speak correctly,
So he didnt go to toastmasters - speaking ability realtes to running a country how? Bill Gates is not what he is becasue of his public speaking.



hires his unqualified friends, denies any involvement in something that makes him look bad Are you hinting at FEMA?




, or any other million things he does to prove that he has no business running the country

Could you list those please :rolleyes:

[medicmaster]

So he didnt go to toastmasters - speaking ability realtes to running a country how? Bill Gates is not what he is becasue of his public speaking.

Gee, I don't know...meeting with international diplomats, delivering addresses to Congress...I'd hate to see Bush try to talk his way through the Cuban Missle Crisis. Bill Gates may be the richest man in the world, and he is who he is because he created windows software. Bill Gates is not the leader of the free world.

Are you hinting at FEMA? Sure, that would be an example....


Could you list those please :rolleyes: Oh, lets see...where to begin, where to begin....

[RadRob]

Bill Gates may be the richest man in the world, and he is who he is because he created windows software. Bill Gates is not the leader of the free world.

Oh, lets see...where to begin, where to begin....

He "created" a little more than Window's.

And of course you duck the question... I would like you to list them too...

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Gee, I don't know...meeting with international diplomats, delivering addresses to Congress...I'd hate to see Bush try to talk his way through the Cuban Missle Crisis. Bill Gates may be the richest man in the world, and he is who he is because he created windows software. Bill Gates is not the leader of the free world.

Sure, that would be an example....


Oh, lets see...where to begin, where to begin....

It's a good thing wars aren't won with talk. Clinton "talked" through Somalia. A real high point in US History.

I'll take a Pres. committed to action every time.

[medicmaster]

It's a good thing wars aren't won with talk. Clinton "talked" through Somalia. A real high point in US History.

I'll take a Pres. committed to action every time.

I'll agree with you for the most part, but to use my example of the Cuban Missle Crisis...I don't think that Kennedy would have done us much of a favor if he had fired off a few nukes to prove a point instead of talking that one out.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

I'll agree with you for the most part, but to use my example of the Cuban Missle Crisis...I don't think that Kennedy would have done us much of a favor if he had fired off a few nukes to prove a point instead of talking that one out.

I have a great deal of respect for the Presidency of JFK. In the CMC, there was no doubt that the talk was going to be backed up. When Kennedy talked, more came out of his mouth than "blah, blah, blah".

Pres. Bush didn't just "fire off" a few missiles in Iraq w/o trying diplomacy first. Every possible diplomatic avenue was explored before the invasion began. Same in Afghanistan.

[ThNozzleman]

So he didnt go to toastmasters - speaking ability realtes to running a country how? Bill Gates is not what he is becasue of his public speaking.
However, Bill Gates is an outstanding public speaker, which belies his intelligence and charisma. Bush...well now, he ain't too good at nuthin', including public speakerismry.

[scfire86]

So as long as the world kept turning, ruining women's lives via sexual assault is not something that bothers you about a President, huh?


Where was the assault? Paula Jones setteled out of court. Kathleen Willey was determined (by Ken Starr) to be unreliable. And Monica has always claimed the relationship was consensual.

More conservative talking points that are blatantly untrue. Even though that never stopped them.

Sorry about being so late. Harriet Miers resigned so the whole episode ended up being moot.

[SSTONER]

I'll agree with you for the most part, but to use my example of the Cuban Missle Crisis...I don't think that Kennedy would have done us much of a favor if he had fired off a few nukes to prove a point instead of talking that one out.

JFK did a lot to avoid war, however, it came a lot closer than most people think to actually having a resolution via military action. Someone became ver y smart very quickly on the Russian/Cuba front.

[WaterbryVTfire]

I'll keep stirring this a bit longer...Hey its what I do!

But here is a simple equation..

Liberals(see Democrats)= Zealot

And for those of you that don't know zealot means some who is VERY committed to a cause. And as with most Libs/Dems, its what ever is annoying them that day. Bush, Alito, war in where ever, the pudding at school was vanilla instead of butter scotch. So basically, the dems will have a distaste for whomever the President picks or what ever the Republicans say or do.

Remember, these are the people that say Bush and his cabinet were racist about the delay in the Gulf. But, if memory serves me Condolezza Rice is....GASP a black woman!! And the most powerful one in the world (except for Oprah!! :D :D ). And the mayor of N.O. was black, the governor is a woman. But, they had NOTHING to with the ball getting dropped! Why..because of course they were democrats!
And one more...why are republicans so bad, because we want some people to work for their welfare. Yet the democrats just want to "give it to them". who is holding who down here?

There I strained my arm stirring!!

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Because by "giving it to them", they create a class of people who are beholden to them for their existence. That translates to votes.

They don't like the Republican equation:

Success = Education + Ambition.

An ambitious person with education has never failed in this country.

[scfire86]

An ambitious person with education has never failed in this country.

And how do you know this? Another platitude with no way to determine its validity.

[scfire86]

I'll keep stirring this a bit longer...Hey its what I do!

But here is a simple equation..

Liberals(see Democrats)= Zealot



Like all conservative talking points this one is nothing more than mythology. I can say safely in our state it is conservatives who constantly attack the institutions that will give people with ambition and without means the opportunity to compete in the work force. Here in CA it is the conservatives who are constantly carping about charging ever higher fees for higher education that would in effect give less opportunity for those from lower socio economic class backgrounds.

Also. Every conservative (or their ancestors) I've ever met who talks about fairness and egality never had to worry about being on the wrong side of slavery, segregation, suffrage or any of the other social ills that has afflicted our nation during the course of its history.


And here in OC, the fire service is a particular target of the conservative media as employing folks who are overpaid and overbenefitted. They would filet out firefighters in a heartbeat given the chance. In the course of their writings during the years I've worked here they have made it clear the only thing they hate more than firefighters employed as a public employee are unions. So we are hit with a double whammy of blind hatred.

You could be ambitious and well educated and will get tossed in front of the bus.

Turn off the AM hate radio talk shows.

[WaterbryVTfire]

Typical liberal, throw out some big words and fancy talk, and fool the lower class of voters into thinking that you actually care about them!

Do you know why Bush won the last election in such an overwhelming manner?
He appeals to the "common man".
Did you see Kerry out clearing brush on his property? Nope....
And lets not get started on Kerry's money...ketchup anyone? Who picks the vegetables for all those items they make? GASP!! Undereducated and under paid immigrants I would assume. Where was the outcry from that?

Did GW stammer and stumble in speeches? Yep...just like most people would in front of a large crowd.

So, if you want to "beat" the conservatives/republicans, find someone that appeals to the average American. Not a over educated "stuffed shirt".

(McCain in '08)

[scfire86]

Typical liberal, throw out some big words and fancy talk, and fool the lower class of voters into thinking that you actually care about them!

Sorry if you believe words with more than two syllables are BIG.


Do you know why Bush won the last election in such an overwhelming manner?


Bush won the popular vote by a whopping 2.5%. Given how you believe that figure is overwhelming, then Clinton's victories are landslides.

He appeals to the "common man".

Like which one's? Bush is the son and grandson of billionaires. Any "common man" who believes Bush thinks about them is a fool.


Did you see Kerry out clearing brush on his property? Nope....
And lets not get started on Kerry's money...ketchup anyone? Who picks the vegetables for all those items they make? GASP!! Undereducated and under paid immigrants I would assume. Where was the outcry from that?

And how do you know this? Did you get another email in your Inbox?


Did GW stammer and stumble in speeches? Yep...just like most people would in front of a large crowd.

I don't.


So, if you want to "beat" the conservatives/republicans, find someone that appeals to the average American. Not a over educated "stuffed shirt".

(McCain in '08)

God forbid we elect a President who is well educated and acts accordingly. Conservatives continually blast away at the public school system then deride someone who actually bothered to learn and use the english language correctly.

No wonder they are walking disasters.

And remember.....reading....it's FUNdamental.

[FFCLTE32]

I'll agree with you for the most part, but to use my example of the Cuban Missle Crisis...I don't think that Kennedy would have done us much of a favor if he had fired off a few nukes to prove a point instead of talking that one out.

The US was very lucky with that, as history shows us. The Cubans had battlefied nukes on the beaches(fortunately in control of the Russians), had they used them the world would be much different today. :(

[FFCLTE32]

This is a quick and good read. It really says alot about Clinton. This comes form a military officer, not some political hack. That being said, I am a member of the vast right wing conspiracy! :D

[scfire86]

This is a quick and good read. It really says alot about Clinton. This comes form a military officer, not some political hack. That being said, I am a member of the vast right wing conspiracy! :D

I read it. It is baloney. Interesting how no one substantiates any of his claims.

I've read articles just as critical of Bush and Cheney and I give them all the credibility they deserve....which is none.

[DaSharkie]

I grew up poor. Under the poverty line. I did everything in my life, no governmental help beyond the GI Bill. I still would have gone to college to get 2 AS, a BS, and now my MHSc. I did it. People told me along the way that I couldn't do it. Not a dime, not a single cent came from any member of my family.

There SC, you have met a conservative that lived on the wrong side of "social ills." The only thing that I will say made it easier was PERHAPS my skin color, but even then I only give a very little leeway. Especially when I see black trauma surgeons working with me in the hospital. When I see poor people succeed and get out of the ghetto.

While many government programs are noble and great ideas, the federal government is not the appropriate place to fund or employ those programs.


And public schools are deplorable. It is always a scream about money. Money this, more money for that. We need this, we need that. I have to say this: when you turn out a quality product, I will give you money. The public schools in the United States are a disgrace. I will bash them every chance that I get because I expect good results from my money and since I pay my local, state, and federal taxes and see the pathetic result that schools turn out from an educational standpoint I want my money's worth.


And while I may not support the current President on much any longer, do you really think that any politician really, truly cares about you?

[scfire86]

I grew up poor. Under the poverty line. I did everything in my life, no governmental help beyond the GI Bill. I still would have gone to college to get 2 AS, a BS, and now my MHSc. I did it. People told me along the way that I couldn't do it. Not a dime, not a single cent came from any member of my family.

There SC, you have met a conservative that lived on the wrong side of "social ills." The only thing that I will say made it easier was PERHAPS my skin color, but even then I only give a very little leeway. Especially when I see black trauma surgeons working with me in the hospital. When I see poor people succeed and get out of the ghetto.

While many government programs are noble and great ideas, the federal government is not the appropriate place to fund or employ those programs.


And public schools are deplorable. It is always a scream about money. Money this, more money for that. We need this, we need that. I have to say this: when you turn out a quality product, I will give you money. The public schools in the United States are a disgrace. I will bash them every chance that I get because I expect good results from my money and since I pay my local, state, and federal taxes and see the pathetic result that schools turn out from an educational standpoint I want my money's worth.


And while I may not support the current President on much any longer, do you really think that any politician really, truly cares about you?

Well Sharkie. The conservatives here in OC would do away with the GI Bill. Right after they do away with the public education that enabled to at least gain rudimentary learning skills. Irrespective of your skin color.

And NO. I stopped believing any politician truly cares. But I wasn't the one claiming one did because he does the yardwork.

[DaSharkie]

Well Sharkie. The conservatives here in OC would do away with the GI Bill. Right after they do away with the public education that enabled to at least gain rudimentary learning skills. Irrespective of your skin color.

And NO. I stopped believing any politician truly cares. But I wasn't the one claiming one did because he does the yardwork.

You are right about the yardwork comment. But I have to say that John Kerry has always come off as quite snotty and aloof. I live in Massachusetts for probably 26 of my 31 years and he has always seemed that way. Bush I can at least relate to a bit more, even if he did have a silver spoon in his mouth. Can't explain it, maybe it is just appearances.


I would fight anyone on the GI Bill. It is a way of helping out Warriors for their service and commitment to this country.

Personally, I think that the teacher's unions and public schools in general could do well to have a bit of competition to produce a good student that is well prepared for the world. Back in Massachusetts the Democrats (who control both houses of legislature) and the teachers unions fight tooth and nail agains "Charter Schools" which more and more parents are happier with than the public schools and feel are better preparing their children.

Not that I want children, but if we have them I have already told my wife that they will not go to a public school. This belief is even more enforced by sister in law who is an elementary school teacher. Absolutely shameful the stuff she informs me of.

[scfire86]

You are right about the yardwork comment. But I have to say that John Kerry has always come off as quite snotty and aloof. I live in Massachusetts for probably 26 of my 31 years and he has always seemed that way. Bush I can at least relate to a bit more, even if he did have a silver spoon in his mouth. Can't explain it, maybe it is just appearances.

I guess I require more than just appearances. Just weird that way.


I would fight anyone on the GI Bill. It is a way of helping out Warriors for their service and commitment to this country.

The conservatives in this county don't believe any tax dollars should go to anything that helps another person. They subscribe to the Ayn Rand philosophy. There should be no public investment of any type. Not education, infrastructure, etc.

[DennisTheMenace]

An ambitious person with education has never failed in this country.Ambition and education has gotten many a person put in jail.

Sometimes it would be preferable for society to have some of the ambitious folks in the world fail.

[DennisTheMenace]

Some conservatives in this county don't believe any tax dollars should go to anything that helps another person. They subscribe to the Ayn Rand philosophy. There should be no public investment of any type. Not education, infrastructure, etc.fixed
Most Conservatives inside of our governement want to limit government, not eliminate it. They want the help to be constructive and not just a crutch or band-aid, or even worse an enabler. Kind of the same goals as the Liberals in government, only difference is the philosophy on how to achive the goals. The fight for power unfortunately has allowed the media to portray the differences in the how as differences in the what, and this has rubbed off on many of those involved. Only the fringes have different end goals, the majority on both sides are closer then most realize.

[scfire86]

Only the fringes have different end goals, the majority on both sides are closer then most realize.

I would agree.

One of the very few times I have listened to Rush Limbaugh and agreed. His soundbite was (regarding social programs), "it's supposed to be a net, not a hammock".

[DaSharkie]

The last 12 years or so of politics have disgusted me on both sides of the coin.

It has driven me to disenroll from the Republican party.

Since both parties are equally full of cheats, scumbags, twits, losers, criminals, philanderers, and all around bottom-feeding scum-sucking whores.

Neither party cares about the Constitution, rights, liberties, or the little man. I have allowed myself to be shamefully mislead these twits. Live and learn.

[DennisTheMenace]

The last 12 years or so of politics have disgusted me on both sides of the coin.

It has driven me to disenroll from the Republican party.

Since both parties are equally full of cheats, scumbags, twits, losers, criminals, philanderers, and all around bottom-feeding scum-sucking whores.

Neither party cares about the Constitution, rights, liberties, or the little man. I have allowed myself to be shamefully mislead these twits. Live and learn.
You exagerate a little too much. Not much that you can say bad about the GOP until 8 years ago, not 12. The GOP's return to the majority started out effeciently and on its stated target, but once the original goals were achieved many in the upper levels of power and leadership got "mad" with the power and allowed the power to corrupt them and make them reach for more then their legit share, same thing that brought down the Dems in 1994. Over all the officials represnting us in both parties are honorable and hard working folks, unfortunately they have allowed themselves to be lead by folks with less then statesmen like goals, who have brought the bad media light upon themselves. Don't let the bad apples that floated to the top taint your view of the positive folks that mistakenly held them up.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Ambition and education has gotten many a person put in jail.

Sometimes it would be preferable for society to have some of the ambitious folks in the world fail.

You know what? You're probably right. I would have to add morals to that equation.

[DennisTheMenace]

You know what? You're probably right. I would have to add morals to that equation.Ethics too, Tom DeLay feels that he was doing the morally correct things with his Texas Political games, the problem is the question about the ethics of the actions in supporting HIS morals.

Life is tough, best thing anyone can do is try to play fair and nice.

[DaSharkie]

You exagerate a little too much. Not much that you can say bad about the GOP until 8 years ago, not 12. The GOP's return to the majority started out effeciently and on its stated target, but once the original goals were achieved many in the upper levels of power and leadership got "mad" with the power and allowed the power to corrupt them and make them reach for more then their legit share, same thing that brought down the Dems in 1994. Over all the officials represnting us in both parties are honorable and hard working folks, unfortunately they have allowed themselves to be lead by folks with less then statesmen like goals, who have brought the bad media light upon themselves. Don't let the bad apples that floated to the top taint your view of the positive folks that mistakenly held them up.

No Dennis, they are all bad. For those scumbags that do the dumbest things get all the press. But the others who do not step up to the plate, call a spade a spade, and actually vocally fight for change I have no respect for.

You are there to represent the individual citizen. No company, fund, group, or whatever. You are there for the PEOPLE of your state. If you either do not represent them, or do not speak out against those who are acting untoward - then you are just as useless.

To a point, you are right about the GOP, but it has gotten so viscious. The whole Clinton thing was blow overboard. The guy was a twit and I lost what little respect I had for the man, but they let politics get viscious and now both sides are just vile and the individual is lost in the arguments that are battled out by the extreme sides of both parties.

For this reason, I do not vote for anyone that has been in office for more than 8 years. It used to be 10 but I had to tighten my standards. After 2 terms, you become the problem because you do nothing to stop the problem and you perpetuate the corruption.

This is how you get twits like Schumer, Kennedy, McCain, Specter, Kerry, Leahy, Rangel, Pelosi, and others. People who are so entrenched in the quest for political power that none of them care for the individual citizens that elect them. Yet we are stuck with millionaires from both parties who do not care.

I think that from now on I will just write in the person that I think is best qualified and appropriate for office.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Shark, you bring a tear to my eye, brother. If onyl you could talk some sense into the citizens of the great state of Massachussetts.

You can't however, paint all politicians with the same broad brush. Here is one example: Curt Weldon.

Need I say more?

[DaSharkie]

There is no talking sense into the sheeple of Massachusetts. So long as there is a person with the last name of Kennedy that wants to run for office they will be led down whatever path is chosen.

This is why I have left Massachusetts and I have told my wife that I will not move back there when school is done - and I mean it.


I can paint them with a broad brush, and I will. I have no faith in politicians (in case that wasn't made clear earlier :D ) of any party any longer. I even gave up my membership in the Republican Party last year because I was a little slow on the uptake that there might be some hope from somebody out there - but alas I was too close to the crack pipes of Durham and got a few fumes.