"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

You know that newspaper you hate? They're suggesting he's a decent
choice. You might not be comfortable with why they're saying this.
Let's see if you can figure it out.

NY Times? Washington Post? LA Times? There are so many, it would
take more effort than I'm willing to give to figure out which article
you're talking about. Why don't you post the article?



NYT. Front page today. Your little puppy may have chosen someone who
real conservatives (the ones who haven't been pithed like frogs for a
biology class) feel is credible. By doing this, the puppy may gain some
credibility with people who have recently disowned him.

You said:
"You might not be comfortable with why they're saying this"


So what wouldn't I be comfortable with?


I believe your puppy was forced to compromise. He may have ended up with a
better judge than we expected, but lost because he got someone who doesn't
sound simple. We win, he loses. Not surprising.

What is this "we" stuff? Roberts is a conservative. Bush and his
supporters wanted a conservative, and got one. I wouldn't consider that
losing.

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

You know that newspaper you hate? They're suggesting he's a decent
choice. You might not be comfortable with why they're saying this.
Let's see if you can figure it out.

NY Times? Washington Post? LA Times? There are so many, it would
take more effort than I'm willing to give to figure out which article
you're talking about. Why don't you post the article?



NYT. Front page today. Your little puppy may have chosen someone who
real conservatives (the ones who haven't been pithed like frogs for a
biology class) feel is credible. By doing this, the puppy may gain some
credibility with people who have recently disowned him.

You said:
"You might not be comfortable with why they're saying this"


So what wouldn't I be comfortable with?


I believe your puppy was forced to compromise. He may have ended up with
a better judge than we expected, but lost because he got someone who
doesn't sound simple. We win, he loses. Not surprising.

Actually *you* lost as GWB won two consecutive terms. He therefore earned
the right to name a replacement Supreme Court Justice.

The Democratic party will again be the loser if they decide to filibuster or
otherwise drag out his approval.

Mark my word on this.

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

You know that newspaper you hate? They're suggesting he's a decent
choice. You might not be comfortable with why they're saying this.
Let's see if you can figure it out.

NY Times? Washington Post? LA Times? There are so many, it would
take more effort than I'm willing to give to figure out which article
you're talking about. Why don't you post the article?



NYT. Front page today. Your little puppy may have chosen someone who
real conservatives (the ones who haven't been pithed like frogs for a
biology class) feel is credible. By doing this, the puppy may gain some
credibility with people who have recently disowned him.

You said:
"You might not be comfortable with why they're saying this"


So what wouldn't I be comfortable with?


I believe your puppy was forced to compromise. He may have ended up with
a better judge than we expected, but lost because he got someone who
doesn't sound simple. We win, he loses. Not surprising.

What is this "we" stuff? Roberts is a conservative. Bush and his
supporters wanted a conservative, and got one. I wouldn't consider that
losing.

Bush wanted someone he understood. A yes man. Roberts appears NOT to be, at
least based on what all the pundits are saying. Bush may think he wanted a
conservative, but you know as well as I do that he couldn't recognize one if
the person hit him upside the head with a salami.

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:14:31 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


Bush wanted someone he understood. A yes man.

How do you know this? Tea leaves?

Roberts appears NOT to be, at
least based on what all the pundits are saying. Bush may think he wanted a
conservative, but you know as well as I do that he couldn't recognize one if
the person hit him upside the head with a salami.

Source?

Tell the truth... all of this is just your opinion. You're not
psychic, just misled and opinionated. That, and $2.25 will get you a
cup of coffee at Starbucks.

My opinion... you're a mental midget compared to President Bush. He's
the leader of the greatest country on earth for a second term, while
you're an embarrassment to yourself on a boating newsgroup.

"Jack Goff" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:14:31 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


Bush wanted someone he understood. A yes man.

How do you know this? Tea leaves?

Roberts appears NOT to be, at
least based on what all the pundits are saying. Bush may think he wanted a
conservative, but you know as well as I do that he couldn't recognize one
if
the person hit him upside the head with a salami.

Source?

Tell the truth... all of this is just your opinion. You're not
psychic, just misled and opinionated. That, and $2.25 will get you a
cup of coffee at Starbucks.

My opinion... you're a mental midget compared to President Bush. He's
the leader of the greatest country on earth for a second term, while
you're an embarrassment to yourself on a boating newsgroup.


I'll start tossing "sources" at you over the coming week, as I have time to
look at them. For now, the short version will do: A number of actual
conservatives have pointed out (in editorials, and on the floor of Congress)
that your puppy is not someone they would admit to being acquainted with, if
didn't have to work with him as part of their jobs.

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 13:20:31 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Jack Goff" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:14:31 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


Bush wanted someone he understood. A yes man.

How do you know this? Tea leaves?

Roberts appears NOT to be, at
least based on what all the pundits are saying. Bush may think he wanted a
conservative, but you know as well as I do that he couldn't recognize one
if
the person hit him upside the head with a salami.

Source?

Tell the truth... all of this is just your opinion. You're not
psychic, just misled and opinionated. That, and $2.25 will get you a
cup of coffee at Starbucks.

My opinion... you're a mental midget compared to President Bush. He's
the leader of the greatest country on earth for a second term, while
you're an embarrassment to yourself on a boating newsgroup.


I'll start tossing "sources" at you over the coming week, as I have time to
look at them. For now, the short version will do: A number of actual
conservatives have pointed out (in editorials, and on the floor of Congress)
that your puppy is not someone they would admit to being acquainted with, if
didn't have to work with him as part of their jobs.


Huh? Your "short version" has nothing to do with your previous
statements. Nothing in there points to how you came to know that
"Bush wants a yes man", or that he can't recognize a conservative.
Nothing.

It may give you a headache, but try to stay focused, OK?

BTW... the job of POTUS shouldn't be a popularity constest. If you
actually do something, and make your beleifs known, there will be some
people, even in your own party, that won't agree with you. Unless
you're a liberal, then the party is full of sheeple that can't think
for themselves, eh? Tow the party line, komrade.

"Jack Goff" wrote in message
news
I'll start tossing "sources" at you over the coming week, as I have time
to
look at them. For now, the short version will do: A number of actual
conservatives have pointed out (in editorials, and on the floor of
Congress)
that your puppy is not someone they would admit to being acquainted with,
if
didn't have to work with him as part of their jobs.


Huh? Your "short version" has nothing to do with your previous
statements. Nothing in there points to how you came to know that
"Bush wants a yes man", or that he can't recognize a conservative.
Nothing.

Your puppy is running out of groups to appeal to for votes. The one gang he
can still depend on is BTCs - Big Time Christians, who are obsessed with
just one issue to the exclusion of all others: Abortion. Therefore, when he
chooses judges (and more importantly, when he brags about his choices), he
MUST focus on people he can point to and make simple claims for. Naturally,
since no sane judge really wants to be associated with Bush, except for long
enough to get the job, only the worst candidates will make public and
simplistic statements about abortion. The qualified individuals know it's
not a simple issue.

So, your boy needs a yes man. Someone of low enough quality to appeal to the
BTCs.

"*JimH*" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

You know that newspaper you hate? They're suggesting he's a decent
choice. You might not be comfortable with why they're saying this.
Let's see if you can figure it out.

NY Times? Washington Post? LA Times? There are so many, it would
take more effort than I'm willing to give to figure out which
article
you're talking about. Why don't you post the article?



NYT. Front page today. Your little puppy may have chosen someone who
real conservatives (the ones who haven't been pithed like frogs for a
biology class) feel is credible. By doing this, the puppy may gain
some
credibility with people who have recently disowned him.

You said:
"You might not be comfortable with why they're saying this"


So what wouldn't I be comfortable with?


I believe your puppy was forced to compromise. He may have ended up
with
a better judge than we expected, but lost because he got someone who
doesn't sound simple. We win, he loses. Not surprising.

Actually *you* lost as GWB won two consecutive terms. He therefore earned
the right to name a replacement Supreme Court Justice.

The Democratic party will again be the loser if they decide to filibuster
or
otherwise drag out his approval.

Mark my word on this.

Dude, I couldn't agree with you more. I mean,
*many* people couldn't agree with you more.
Its sad to see the demise of the Democratic party
like this - this "Deanism" if you will. Used to be
(60's, 70's, 80's) that, although opposite of the
Republican party, the Dems were considered
fairly noble (and civil). Now days, the direction
from the leaders of the Democratic party is this
Howard Deanism. Ted Kennedy, John Kerryism
calling the president Hitler, calling Aubu Grab
Saddams tortue chambers under "new management".
List goes on. This is a fairly new (failing) strategy
for the Dems, and even in the height of Viet Nam
I don't think we've seen this. Think about it, no
one (at least me) didn't hear Jimmy Carter up there
calling the President "Hitler", and yada, yada...
Hell, I didn't like Carter per-se, but I thought he
was a good man (really genuine), and I couldn't
even picture him saying HALF of the **** that you
see these new modern, radical Dems saying NOW.
Honestly, I feel bad for the Dem party - I don't see
any Jimmy Carter types in the hopper for 08. Even
if there were, the Dem party no longer sees the
value of them - they are of this misguided idea
that its this "Deanism" anger is where the biggest
percentage of voters are. And this insn't the case.
Dennis Kucinsih, Al Sharpton, John Kerry etc.??
*thats* what the Dem part put up against Bush ?
How stupid is THAT? - no wonder Bush won.
The only one marginally like the old school Dems
was John Edwards, but he was a little too young
and boyish, and lacked experience, and went down
in flames. I thought Joe Leiberman would have been
a good choice for the Dems, but this 'Dean-ism' has
brainwashed the Dem voters that no, its not logic and
even-keeled that they want, its HATE/ANGER for
Bush. But the problem in 08 is, there *is* no Bush
to challange. But I'll bet you my new boat that the
the Dems will *still* make that their main platform.
Anyone but Bush, out with Bush, beat Bush, yada.
(even though Bush is out no matter what). Baffling.

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 16:33:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Jack Goff" wrote:

Huh? Your "short version" has nothing to do with your previous
statements. Nothing in there points to how you came to know that
"Bush wants a yes man", or that he can't recognize a conservative.
Nothing.

Your puppy is running out of groups to appeal to for votes. The one gang he
can still depend on is BTCs - Big Time Christians, who are obsessed with
just one issue to the exclusion of all others: Abortion. Therefore, when he
chooses judges (and more importantly, when he brags about his choices), he
MUST focus on people he can point to and make simple claims for. Naturally,
since no sane judge really wants to be associated with Bush, except for long
enough to get the job, only the worst candidates will make public and
simplistic statements about abortion. The qualified individuals know it's
not a simple issue.

So, your boy needs a yes man. Someone of low enough quality to appeal to the
BTCs.


You worked yourself into quite a lather spinning that one up.
Unfortunately, it doesn't make much sense.

President Bush picked a high quality judge for his Supreme Court
nominee. One that is so non-political, he is anything but a "yes
man". He is fairly conservative, but, once again, so non-political
that he has the support of many democrats, both in the past and
present. He's a very smart pick, as he has nothing for the looney
liberal left to get traction on, but he's still conservative.

You liberals have been out-foxed by President Bush again.

BTW... you liberals claim all the time that Bush is just a puppet, and
is actually controlled by people in the background. Now you're giving
him full credit for picking a "yes man", and not being able to discern
a conservative when he appoints one. So which is it, Doug? Is
President Bush running the show, or not? You can't have it both
ways... you're obviously lying when you take one of those positions,
unless you actually can't make up your mind. Which is it in your
opinion... did our President make the choice himself, good or bad, or
is he just a mouthpiece? Careful... you'll be graded, and judged, on
your choice later.

And through it all, you've still failed to show how your opinions are
anything but that... opinions.

"Jack Goff" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 16:33:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Jack Goff" wrote:

Huh? Your "short version" has nothing to do with your previous
statements. Nothing in there points to how you came to know that
"Bush wants a yes man", or that he can't recognize a conservative.
Nothing.

Your puppy is running out of groups to appeal to for votes. The one gang
he
can still depend on is BTCs - Big Time Christians, who are obsessed with
just one issue to the exclusion of all others: Abortion. Therefore, when
he
chooses judges (and more importantly, when he brags about his choices), he
MUST focus on people he can point to and make simple claims for.
Naturally,
since no sane judge really wants to be associated with Bush, except for
long
enough to get the job, only the worst candidates will make public and
simplistic statements about abortion. The qualified individuals know it's
not a simple issue.

So, your boy needs a yes man. Someone of low enough quality to appeal to
the
BTCs.


You worked yourself into quite a lather spinning that one up.
Unfortunately, it doesn't make much sense.

President Bush picked a high quality judge for his Supreme Court
nominee. One that is so non-political, he is anything but a "yes
man". He is fairly conservative, but, once again, so non-political
that he has the support of many democrats, both in the past and
present. He's a very smart pick, as he has nothing for the looney
liberal left to get traction on, but he's still conservative.

You liberals have been out-foxed by President Bush again.

BTW... you liberals claim all the time that Bush is just a puppet, and
is actually controlled by people in the background. Now you're giving
him full credit for picking a "yes man", and not being able to discern
a conservative when he appoints one. So which is it, Doug? Is
President Bush running the show, or not? You can't have it both
ways... you're obviously lying when you take one of those positions,
unless you actually can't make up your mind. Which is it in your
opinion... did our President make the choice himself, good or bad, or
is he just a mouthpiece? Careful... you'll be graded, and judged, on
your choice later.

And through it all, you've still failed to show how your opinions are
anything but that... opinions.


As I've explained to you in the past, there is no possibility that your
puppy is not damaged in some way. I know it would disturb your day to day
trance to admit it, but at some point in the future, you will. You probably
want a fancy clinical name for his condition, but I can't help you with
that. It's enough to say that if you were interviewing for a job that
required any sort of intelligence and someone like him came along, you'd
move his job application to the bottom of the pile. You know that.