YEEEEHAAAAAAA. What a bunch of CRAP...

ProudDem said:
You know what, everybody? No one is really reading what I have said in this thread. I think Roberts should be confirmed. I think he is brilliant. However, no candidate is perfect, and my concern is that he does not have perspective on some types of issues. That's it. Why you all are hounding me about this ONE concern is beyond me. You're all making it seem as though I think he cannot be a good justice because of this. Again, this is merely a concern. Okay?

And whoever said that what I said meant that no male judge should be able to decide a case on women's rights issues has some serious reading comprehension problems. What I was saying was that part of my basis for having the concern about "perspective" was based upon his past discussions on women's voting rights and civil rights. He is NOT a woman. He's arguing against women's voting rights and his voting rights would not be in jeopardy. Get it?

This has WHAT to do with whether or not you're carrying two sets of rules -- one for the right and one for the left?

My concerns addressed in this thread was related solely to JUDGES who decide cases. Neither of those two men are being nominated to be judges. That was what I meant. Sheesh.

You're probably getting "hounded" because you are voicing the EXACT reason your proud party is going to use to vote against Roberts and I happen to think it's a pretty piss poor reason.
 
ProudDem said:
You know what, everybody? No one is really reading what I have said in this thread. I think Roberts should be confirmed. I think he is brilliant. However, no candidate is perfect, and my concern is that he does not have perspective on some types of issues. That's it. Why you all are hounding me about this ONE concern is beyond me. You're all making it seem as though I think he cannot be a good justice because of this. Again, this is merely a concern. Okay?

And whoever said that what I said meant that no male judge should be able to decide a case on women's rights issues has some serious reading comprehension problems. What I was saying was that part of my basis for having the concern about "perspective" was based upon his past discussions on women's voting rights and civil rights. He is NOT a woman. He's arguing against women's voting rights and his voting rights would not be in jeopardy. Get it?

This has WHAT to do with whether or not you're carrying two sets of rules -- one for the right and one for the left?

My concerns addressed in this thread was related solely to JUDGES who decide cases. Neither of those two men are being nominated to be judges. That was what I meant. Sheesh.

YOU questioned Roberts credibility based on his class, not anyone else. It is to THAT comment I have responded.

And whether or not you have different sets of rules for the right and the left goes to YOUR credibility.
 
ProudDem said:
Dillo, I am a die-hard dem; however, I cannot stand Hillary. I DO NOT want her as president. Blech! If she were running against John McCain, I would vote republican for the first time in my life. :shocked:
Although I guess if she were running against Frist, I would have to vote for her.

I also cannot stand Biden. I would love to see Russell Feingold run or perhaps Mark Warner (he's my governor).

Feingold? Why?
 
ProudDem said:
Dillo, I am a die-hard dem; however, I cannot stand Hillary. I DO NOT want her as president. Blech! If she were running against John McCain, I would vote republican for the first time in my life. :shocked:
Although I guess if she were running against Frist, I would have to vote for her.

I also cannot stand Biden. I would love to see Russell Feingold run or perhaps Mark Warner (he's my governor).

Had Lieberman run against Bush I might have voted Dem for President for the first time ever. If Hillary runs, I will vote Republican for the second time in my life for President. I usually vote Libertarian, but I actually have slightly less respect for Kerry than I do for HillBilly, but not much.
 

Forum List

Back
Top