RkFast Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 He took advantage of the opportunity to fill the vacancy quickly, by putting something on the public agenda that would distract attention from the CIA-Leak situation. That isn't that hard to understand, even if you disagree with it. 491804[/snapback] That's bull sh--. The CIA thingy isnt going to go away for a long, long time. Was Bush to put all items on his agenda on the back burners, to avoid "distracting" us? And what expected news is coming out TODAY that this pick is distracting the public from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
post modern age Posted October 31, 2005 Author Share Posted October 31, 2005 Who cares, at least he isn't bombing foreign countries to take the medias attention off from sticking cigars up a fat interns ass. 491815[/snapback] To be sarcastic -- or perhaps not... Some corporate global powers were in sticky situations in the late 80's and early 90's when the first Bush presidency started parading troops all around the Middle East (See Tyco, Exxon) And ironically enough, some corporate global powers were in sticky situations in the late 90's early 21st century when the second Bush presidency started parading troops all around the Middle East (See mainly: Enron) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 He took advantage of the opportunity to fill the vacancy quickly, by putting something on the public agenda that would distract attention from the CIA-Leak situation. That isn't that hard to understand, even if you disagree with it. 491804[/snapback] I guess my tinfoil hat is not on tightly enough. The grand jury session is done. You could also look at it differently. You could look at it that he waited until the grand jury session was completed before announcing his nomination, so as to not distract from said grand jury. If Bush did not nominate someone, then the media would be focused on why he has not nominated someone. Damned if you do...damned if you don't... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
post modern age Posted October 31, 2005 Author Share Posted October 31, 2005 That's bull sh--. The CIA thingy isnt going to go away for a long, long time. Was Bush to put all items on his agenda on the back burners, to avoid "distracting" us? And what expected news is coming out TODAY that this pick is distracting the public from? 491817[/snapback] It's not bull-sh--, and unless you are Nostradamus, I fail to see how you can tell what is going to impact us in a long, long time. My issue is with the fact that I do not feel that Bush took the appropriate time, nor the appropriate steps in making a wise decision with his post Mier-debacle nomination. And yes, I do think it is in part to rush some attention away from the ongoing scandal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 I could not care less whether or not he nominated another woman, that is just a ironic little diddy. I'm sure that he had wholesome, honest and pure intentions in nominating Alito today. "Well, Dicky, I just thought he'd be a good justice," I'm sure he explained. I'm not a democrat. I'm not a liberal. I'm not anti-Republican. Here is what I am: Something with enough sense to understand that all this nomination was brought about when it was brought about, with who it was brought about, to take away attention from the CIA investigation that has consumed the media. Perhaps that's intelligent strategy by the Bush administration but it's also playing cadence on the future of the Supreme juidicial system of our nation. 'Staying the course' is a ridiculous and absurd idea. The fact that George W. Bush jusitifes Harriet Mier's nomination by saying he believes that she would believe in 20 years what she does today; treating that as a positive characteristic is !@#$ing unbelievable. If we are to determine that we would want our Judges to have the same frame of mind 20 years from now as in today than I might as well leave, because I don't love this country that much to watch it flush itself down the toilet. We are a nation of daily changes; daily changes whose base conservative value is "Stay the Course!! Stay the Course!! Stay the Course!!!" There was a similar result in this in the bloody Dark Ages. Do I think Bush is a bad president? Yes. Do I thin Bush is a bad president because I am angered by the fact that he does not follow a liberal agenda? No. I am with 60+% of the nation in believing that he is a bad president, and why? Because he's doing an awful job, and this is an awful selection, used to curb attention and to appease his profiteers. If Bush is that concerned in pleasing his stockholders, and treating America as though it is simply big business, then again, I have no regrets in saying that, this path continued, I will leave, and should. Because if this is the future of America, it's no place for people who don't wish to use circle-logic as the basis of their entire political philosophy. 491792[/snapback] Uh...so back to your original post. You are upset because Alito is a 'nerd' and because MSNBC didn't have a headline calling him a prick? Wow, we sure are lucky to have deep thinkers like you on this board! Since you are obviously so learned on this man, feel free to share with us your specific objections to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
post modern age Posted October 31, 2005 Author Share Posted October 31, 2005 I guess my tinfoil hat is not on tightly enough. The grand jury session is done. You could also look at it differently. You could look at it that he waited until the grand jury session was completed before announcing his nomination, so as to not distract from said grand jury. If Bush did not nominate someone, then the media would be focused on why he has not nominated someone. Damned if you do...damned if you don't... 491826[/snapback] As to if Bush did not nominate someone -- I don't think so, at least not this week. The grand jury session is done, but the investigation is ongoing, and Karl Rove's hot seat cooled down considerably today. Yes, I know, Rove was not indicted and their were mixed reports as to whether he was still in hot water or not. Politically, Karl Rove is a benefactor of good timing on the administrations part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
post modern age Posted October 31, 2005 Author Share Posted October 31, 2005 Uh...so back to your original post. You are upset because Alito is a 'nerd' and because MSNBC didn't have a headline calling him a prick? Wow, we sure are lucky to have deep thinkers like you on this board! Since you are obviously so learned on this man, feel free to share with us your specific objections to him. 491832[/snapback] I'm not upset, and trust me, deep-thinking and forums don't go together. You're neither scholarly nor socially appreciative enough to be so, and neither am I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 As to if Bush did not nominate someone -- I don't think so, at least not this week. The grand jury session is done, but the investigation is ongoing, and Karl Rove's hot seat cooled down considerably today. Yes, I know, Rove was not indicted and their were mixed reports as to whether he was still in hot water or not. Politically, Karl Rove is a benefactor of good timing on the administrations part. 491836[/snapback] So Bush should not have nominated anyone to the USSC until all his enemies were finished with their investigations of some specific unelected officials? Got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
post modern age Posted October 31, 2005 Author Share Posted October 31, 2005 So Bush should not have nominated anyone to the USSC until all his enemies were finished with their investigations of some specific unelected officials? Got it. 491848[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 As to if Bush did not nominate someone -- I don't think so, at least not this week. I disagree. If he did not nominate someone, the media would be stating, "He is too distracted by the indictment and the Rove allegations to effectively do his job...blah...blah...blah..." Remember, we are in a 24/7 news cycle and they are looking for something to talk about. If they cannot find anything, they will just make stuff up to talk about. Reporters will pester Bush on a daily basis on why he hasn't filled the vacancy on the court. The grand jury session is done, but the investigation is ongoing, and Karl Rove's hot seat cooled down considerably today. Yes, I know, Rove was not indicted and their were mixed reports as to whether he was still in hot water or not. He is still in hot water. I am guessing that Fitzgerald is waiting for the next grand jury session in order to continue his work looking into Rove. Politically, Karl Rove is a benefactor of good timing on the administrations part. 491836[/snapback] Rove is not benefiting at all. The Dems (namely Ried) have been pressing Bush to fire Rove, even though no indictments were brought against him and he has not been found guilty of anything in a court of law. It looks like more of the "guilty until proven innocent" stuff from Ried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 He took advantage of the opportunity to fill the vacancy quickly, by putting something on the public agenda that would distract attention from the CIA-Leak situation. That isn't that hard to understand, even if you disagree with it. 491804[/snapback] So much for the whole "nation of daily changes" rant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 It's not bull-sh--, and unless you are Nostradamus, I fail to see how you can tell what is going to impact us in a long, long time. My issue is with the fact that I do not feel that Bush took the appropriate time, nor the appropriate steps in making a wise decision with his post Mier-debacle nomination. And yes, I do think it is in part to rush some attention away from the ongoing scandal. 491831[/snapback] Yeah, you must be right. After all, there couldn't have been a list compiled (containing names like John Roberts, Meirs, Gonzalez, Alito, etc) in the MONTHS since Justice O'Connor announced her retirement. Not in a nation of daily changes. Keep trying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Yeah, you must be right. After all, there couldn't have been a list compiled (containing names like John Roberts, Meirs, Gonzalez, Alito, etc) in the MONTHS since Justice O'Connor announced her retirement. Not in a nation of daily changes. Keep trying. 491867[/snapback] Of course not. Bush is an "idiot" and wouldnt think to do that. That is, exept when he's designing a diabolical scheme to subvert the political process and draw attention away from the CIA-Leak (we need a good nickname for that) and save Karl Rove's ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Of course not. Bush is an "idiot" and wouldnt think to do that. That is, exept when he's designing a diabolical scheme to subvert the political process and draw attention away from the CIA-Leak (we need a good nickname for that) and save Karl Rove's ass. 491880[/snapback] I always love the alternating "Bush is an idiot" / "Bush is scheming with the Evil Corporations for world domination" theories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 I always love the alternating "Bush is an idiot" / "Bush is scheming with the Evil Corporations for world domination" theories. 491895[/snapback] Bush is evil because he nominated someone with credentials worthy of SCOTUS for SCOTUS as part of 2 of his 3 nominations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Rove is too busy running his hurricane making machine to get involved in the scandal! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 I always love the alternating "Bush is an idiot" / "Bush is scheming with the Evil Corporations for world domination" theories. 491895[/snapback] This is nothing.....you should see what Im going through on another board (you think I do this crap just HERE??!!??) where a typical "Bush Bad!!" nut is whining how "the idiot" and his minions....get this...."forced" NBC to run that documentary last week on the Evangelical Movement to "force" religion on the populace and "indocrinate" our children into the movment. I kid you not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Rove is too busy running his hurricane making machine to get involved in the scandal! 491927[/snapback] That's MY hurricane machine, and I want it back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 The President gets to nominate who he pleases. That is the law and the way it works. I would expect him to nominate someone who thinks the way he does, as I would expect a Democrat to. He shouldn't pander to anyone, on his side or the other, or the middle, but nominate a man or woman that has a solid background and believes what he believes. This guy doesn't seem so bad to me, and I am a liberal. The Scalito stuff, to me, is more because it's a cute play on words rather than actually being a lot like Scalia. I don't agree with some of his stances but it's impossible to agree on most everyone's stances if you're a free thinking person. Frankly, I hate Bush, and not afraid to say it, but Roberts was a homerun, and this guy at least seems like a reasonable choice. The left cannot expect Bush to nominate someone they like, they would select, or shares their philosophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Kelly, When did Rove use his mind control ray on you? You are actully calm and reasonable today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts