Recently you stated that in your opinion the military could fight on
three fronts and not lose any capability. I thought you might be
interested in what the Pentagon had to say about it...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11009829/

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in message
oups.com
Recently you stated that in your opinion the military
could fight on three fronts and not lose any capability.
I thought you might be interested in what the Pentagon
had to say about it...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11009829/

The name of the game in the military is called "appropriations". Their
stated capabilities are therefore politically and economically significant.
What they'd do if they *had to* might be something else.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
Recently you stated that in your opinion the military could fight on
three fronts and not lose any capability. I thought you might be
interested in what the Pentagon had to say about it...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11009829/

The story related the findings of a study commissioned by the Pentagon, it
is not the position of the Pentagon.

The obvious solution is to do something to help encourage enlistment,
something that likely would be opposed by the Democrats since it would
lessen their ability to buy votes with giveaway programs. We can generally
count on the Leftists to be opposed to anything that strengthens our ability
to defend ourselves.

From:
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 16:46:02 GMT

The obvious solution is to do something to help encourage enlistment,
something that likely would be opposed by the Democrats since it would
lessen their ability to buy votes with giveaway programs. We can generally
count on the Leftists to be opposed to anything that strengthens our ability
to defend ourselves.

Hm. Presidential election of last year. Kerry advocates creating two
more army divisions, one each in special operations and support.

Bush: "We're winning this thing and don't need any more help."

Since when is Bush a leftist?

There are recruiting bonuses already in place in the tens of thousands
of dollars. If they offer, say, $500,000 I might even join. Of course,
then you replace a professional military with mercenaries.

The report isn't going to be the official position of the Pentagon. It
was a third-party unbiased look. In fact, one might expect a former
army officer to write how great everything is.

What is Rumsfeld's position? Let's look at what he said in response:

Duck #1

"This armed force is enormously capable," Rumsfeld told reporters
at a Pentagon briefing. "In addition, it's battle hardened. It's
not a peacetime force that has been in barracks or garrisons."

Translation: the military has lots of cool weapons. We're not afraid to
use them. They've been all over the world using them recently.

"Do we still need more rebalancing? You bet," Rumsfeld said.

Rebalancing? LOL! IOW, the report is essentially correct. This isn't
about 'fine-tuning.'

"Rumsfeld said that "retention is up" and that recruitment levels
must meet higher goals, ones raised because of the operations on the
ground."

Retention is only up because of up to $50,000 or more tax-free dollars
given to young soldiers who stay in. The interesting thing to me is how
many still walk away from the money. Hey, Rummy, you are missing your
lower recruiting goals. How will you meet higher ones? Typical Rumsfeld
doublespeak.

"There is no question if a country is in a conflict and we are in the
global war on terror, it requires our forces to do something other than
what they do in peacetime."

Translation: The sky is over our heads, and it rains sometimes. When it
rains, it tends to get cloudy first. Stating the obvious, not at all
related to what the report said.

"The world saw the United States military go halfway around the world
in a matter of weeks, throw the al-Qaida and Taliban out of
Afghanistan, in a landlocked country thousands and thousands of miles
away. They saw what the United States military did in Iraq.

"And the message from that is not that this armed force is broken,
but that this armed force is enormously capable," Rumsfeld said.

Transalation: In World War II we kicked butt. In Korea we kicked butt.
That was a long time ago. The world saw us go halfway around the world
and kick butt in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Who could possibly say there
are any issues in the military, given that we kicked butt as recently
as three years ago?

Soldiers vote with their feet. Recruiting missed its goal last year by
over 8%. That is a very significant number when one considers the
thousands of dollars offered in enlistment bonuses. While recruiting
apparently is meeting its goals this year, the goals were revised
significantly downward.

Retention goals are always a loss. You never keep 100%. So you have a
goal of, say retaining 30 or 50 percent.

Therefore, you have dwindling numbers. You aren't recruiting enough to
make up losses, and you aren't retaining enough to stop the flow. Given
the tempo of world-wide operations (read deployments) it isn't too hard
to see that the point of the report is true: the military could soon
reach a breaking point.

Political bull**** aside, there are large issues facing the readiness
of our military. That the leadership of the country seems oblivious to
that is alarming to me. Rummy didn't even address equipment issues.
There's no point in addressing those, since you have to have people to
operate the equipment in the first place.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From:
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 16:46:02 GMT

The obvious solution is to do something to help encourage enlistment,
something that likely would be opposed by the Democrats since it would
lessen their ability to buy votes with giveaway programs. We can
generally
count on the Leftists to be opposed to anything that strengthens our
ability
to defend ourselves.

Hm. Presidential election of last year. Kerry advocates creating two
more army divisions, one each in special operations and support.

Bush: "We're winning this thing and don't need any more help."

Since when is Bush a leftist?

He's not, he's just reacting to the politics of that moment, where the Dems
were trying to make it seem like we didn't have enough people in uniform.


There are recruiting bonuses already in place in the tens of thousands
of dollars. If they offer, say, $500,000 I might even join. Of course,
then you replace a professional military with mercenaries.

The report isn't going to be the official position of the Pentagon. It
was a third-party unbiased look. In fact, one might expect a former
army officer to write how great everything is.

I don't think there is such a thing as an unbiased third party when it comes
to the military, or almost anything else that has anything to do with
politics. YMMV

What is Rumsfeld's position? Let's look at what he said in response:

Duck #1

"This armed force is enormously capable," Rumsfeld told reporters
at a Pentagon briefing. "In addition, it's battle hardened. It's
not a peacetime force that has been in barracks or garrisons."

Translation: the military has lots of cool weapons. We're not afraid to
use them. They've been all over the world using them recently.

Sure, Clinton had them all over the place.


"Do we still need more rebalancing? You bet," Rumsfeld said.

Rebalancing? LOL! IOW, the report is essentially correct. This isn't
about 'fine-tuning.'

An opinion you get to have.

"Rumsfeld said that "retention is up" and that recruitment levels
must meet higher goals, ones raised because of the operations on the
ground."

Retention is only up because of up to $50,000 or more tax-free dollars
given to young soldiers who stay in. The interesting thing to me is how
many still walk away from the money. Hey, Rummy, you are missing your
lower recruiting goals. How will you meet higher ones? Typical Rumsfeld
doublespeak.

An opinion you get to have.

"There is no question if a country is in a conflict and we are in the
global war on terror, it requires our forces to do something other than
what they do in peacetime."

Translation: The sky is over our heads, and it rains sometimes. When it
rains, it tends to get cloudy first. Stating the obvious, not at all
related to what the report said.


"The world saw the United States military go halfway around the world
in a matter of weeks, throw the al-Qaida and Taliban out of
Afghanistan, in a landlocked country thousands and thousands of miles
away. They saw what the United States military did in Iraq.

"And the message from that is not that this armed force is broken,
but that this armed force is enormously capable," Rumsfeld said.

Transalation: In World War II we kicked butt. In Korea we kicked butt.
That was a long time ago. The world saw us go halfway around the world
and kick butt in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Who could possibly say there
are any issues in the military, given that we kicked butt as recently
as three years ago?

Soldiers vote with their feet. Recruiting missed its goal last year by
over 8%. That is a very significant number when one considers the
thousands of dollars offered in enlistment bonuses. While recruiting
apparently is meeting its goals this year, the goals were revised
significantly downward.

Retention goals are always a loss. You never keep 100%. So you have a
goal of, say retaining 30 or 50 percent.

Therefore, you have dwindling numbers. You aren't recruiting enough to
make up losses, and you aren't retaining enough to stop the flow. Given
the tempo of world-wide operations (read deployments) it isn't too hard
to see that the point of the report is true: the military could soon
reach a breaking point.

Maybe, maybe not. The people I keep hearing from who are staioned in Iraq
are very dedicated to the goals there and don't want to quit. Even if they
did the only way to make up for what you seem to think is a crisis, would be
to institute a draft, which would be one of the worst things that could be
done becuase of the lack of dedication of the draftees.


Political bull**** aside, there are large issues facing the readiness
of our military. That the leadership of the country seems oblivious to
that is alarming to me. Rummy didn't even address equipment issues.
There's no point in addressing those, since you have to have people to
operate the equipment in the first place.

An opinion you get to have. Perhaps if the Dems hadn't been systematically
trying to dismantle so many of the things that help us gather information,
things would be drastically different.

Then of course there's the fact that when Bin Ladin was offered up on a
silver platter to Clinton, he couldn't think of any reason that could be
used to hold him.

That Democrats are screaming the sky is falling about the military strikes
me as just another bit of politics played for the purpose of trying to make
Bush look bad.

They always have a double standard and pretend that they have good reasons
for their actions, case in point Judge Alito. When he was last up for
confirmation he was UNANIMOUSLY approved by the Senate. The Dems seem to
think that they have to fight extra hard because he would be replacing a
swing vote on the Supreme Court. They blank out the fact that Justices are
appointed by the President and if they are qualified they should be
confirmed, just as Ruth Bader Ginsburg(sp?) was. It seems very apparent to
me that she's more to the left than Alito is to the right, but that doesn't
seem to register with the Dems, they simply want to distort the character of
any GOP nominated judge.

The most laughable thing about this is that nobody ever knows what the hell
a Justice will do when they get to the bench. Earl Warren was a major
surprise and perhaps one of the worst people ever to be on the high court,
so it is always a crap shoot.

Hopefully, he will be as advertised, a strict follower of the Constitution.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:47:34 GMT, wrote:

Then of course there's the fact that when Bin Ladin was offered up on a
silver platter to Clinton, he couldn't think of any reason that could be
used to hold him.

Same could be said tor President Bush, even though one had the
experience of 9/11 and the other didn't.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:47:34 GMT, wrote:

Then of course there's the fact that when Bin Ladin was offered up on a
silver platter to Clinton, he couldn't think of any reason that could be
used to hold him.

Same could be said tor President Bush, even though one had the
experience of 9/11 and the other didn't.

The platter was more like a drippy diaper.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:47:34 GMT, wrote:

Hopefully, he will be as advertised, a strict follower of the Constitution.

I guess this means that he agrees with the concept of eminent domain,
a principle that's *explictly* confirmed by the 5th Amendment of the
Constitution.

This must make you sick to your stomach...

In article ,
dave weil wrote:

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:47:34 GMT, wrote:

Hopefully, he will be as advertised, a strict follower of the Constitution.

I guess this means that he agrees with the concept of eminent domain,
a principle that's *explictly* confirmed by the 5th Amendment of the
Constitution.

This must make you sick to your stomach...

How 'bout that Fourth Amendment?

Stephen

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:47:34 GMT, wrote:

Hopefully, he will be as advertised, a strict follower of the
Constitution.

I guess this means that he agrees with the concept of eminent domain,
a principle that's *explictly* confirmed by the 5th Amendment of the
Constitution.

This must make you sick to your stomach...




......for public purposes (not that Mikey agrees with that, either)



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:47:34 GMT, wrote:

Hopefully, he will be as advertised, a strict follower of the
Constitution.

I guess this means that he agrees with the concept of eminent domain,
a principle that's *explictly* confirmed by the 5th Amendment of the
Constitution.

This must make you sick to your stomach...

That the government can take away people's property? Absolutely.
Perhaps as with Roe Vs. Wade, someone will come up with something that will
make it possible to realize how bad and anti freedom such an idea is.

From:
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:47:34 GMT

Nob, you should start all your political posts with a disclaimer: "The
following is a paid political advertisement of the GOP. I am Nob, and I
approve of this message."

You state several times that what I said is "An opinion (I) get to
have."

All opinions are not equal. I don't think your opinion in this case is
as valid as my opinion. What years exactly did you serve in uniform?
What grade did you hold when you left? You mention that you've talked
with soldiers in Iraq. Are these on the news, friends of friends, or
people you personally know?

I get to have opinions based on 21 years in uniform, from 1984 to 2005.
I commanded three units in that time. I entered service as a PV2. I
retired as a major last October. I have been deployed. I have earned
imminent danger/hostile fire pay. The people I talk to in Iraq and
Afghanistan are friends of mine. Some hold high rank. Some are
enlisted. Some are commanding units on the ground. Some are fliers.
They are there right now. I hear the opinions they get to have without
the media or White House filter.

I would suggest that my opinion could be qualified as an 'expert'
opinion. Can you say the same?

On to your propaganda:

Since when is Bush a leftist?

He's not, he's just reacting to the politics of that moment, where the Dems
were trying to make it seem like we didn't have enough people in uniform.

"In uniform" includes the Air Force and the Navy. We probably have
enough there. The Army and Marines are doing the bulk of the taskings
in Afghanistan and Iraq. Further, over 50% of those currently deployed
are reservists. Here's another factoid for you: not only is recruiting
down, but the pipeline of people leaving active duty and going into the
reserves is basically dry. People are getting out and staying out.
These are numbers, not opinions. As these reservists go into their
second and third deployments, they come back and their jobs are gone.
Divorce rates are up. They face all kinds of problems when they get
back. I have also started hearing about firms passing on reservists as
employees because of the fear that they will be deployed. And yes, I
know very well about the legal protections offered to soldiers that get
deployed. As with anything else, there are ways aound those laws.

We do not have enough people in uniform. It's getting worse, not
better. It's not political or opinion. It's a fact I get to have. And
we still have not talked about equipment readiness.

Translation: the military has lots of cool weapons. We're not afraid to
use them. They've been all over the world using them recently.

Sure, Clinton had them all over the place.

LOL! The old 'blame Clinton' conservative saw. Are you seriously trying
to compare military deployments during the Clinton years to now? You
lose.

An opinion you get to have.
An opinion you get to have.
An opinion you get to have.

See above. So are you a chickenhawk, or did you actually serve? If you
served, was it for more than two years, and were you higher than a
corporal when you got out?

Maybe, maybe not. The people I keep hearing from who are staioned in Iraq
are very dedicated to the goals there and don't want to quit. Even if they
did the only way to make up for what you seem to think is a crisis, would be
to institute a draft, which would be one of the worst things that could be
done becuase of the lack of dedication of the draftees.

Nice, but irrelevant. Nobody is saying, or to my knowledge has *ever*
said, that those serving are not dedicated. They are. And now that
we're in a quagmire, I think it would be irresponsible to pull out
immediately. That does not equal support for Bushie's policies.

Now ask the reservists and soldiers what their job prospects are when
they get back, whether they'll stay in or get out when their rotation
is over, or whether they want to get deployed again to Iraq or
Afghanistan. Think the answers will be the same? I can tell you what
*I* hear: "I'm gone." That's another fact I get to have.

Political bull**** aside, there are large issues facing the readiness
of our military. That the leadership of the country seems oblivious to
that is alarming to me. Rummy didn't even address equipment issues.
There's no point in addressing those, since you have to have people to
operate the equipment in the first place.

An opinion you get to have. Perhaps if the Dems hadn't been systematically
trying to dismantle so many of the things that help us gather information,
things would be drastically different.

"It's Clinton's fault!"

Um, when did the republicans take over the house? 1994? In case you
didn't know how it works, the House appropriates and funds those kind
of things. So how did the Democrats exactly pull this off, given they
were in the minority? That Clinton was one powerful fella.;-)

Then of course there's the fact that when Bin Ladin was offered up on a
silver platter to Clinton, he couldn't think of any reason that could be
used to hold him.

What was the report that Bushie had on September 10th? Something like,
"Osama bin Laden is Going to Hijack Several Planes and Use Them as
Weapons Against Buildings." I think that was it. What did your hero do?
He went on vacation. So let's not go there, OK?

That Democrats are screaming the sky is falling about the military strikes
me as just another bit of politics played for the purpose of trying to make
Bush look bad.

They don't need to. Bushie manages to do it all by himself.

So the reports just released about the current state of the military
are just Democrats posturing. Can I visit you in your world sometime?
It just seems so simple there.

rant about Alito snipped due to being entirely irrelvant to this
discussion, and factually wrong.

I'll address this one though:

When he was last up for confirmation he was UNANIMOUSLY approved by the Senate. The Dems seem to
think that they have to fight extra hard because he would be replacing a
swing vote on the Supreme Court.

So in your mind a judge in District Court or a Court of Appeals is
equal to a Supreme Court Justice. Can I visit your world sometime? And
all you have to be is 'qualified?' Then what was the problem with
Miers? Or in your opinion should she have been confirmed?

Ninny.

As for being a 'strict follower' of the Constitution: I want to own a
couple of nuclear weapons. According to the Bill of Rights, I have a
right to bear arms. The Constitution does not specify which arms those
strictly might be. Come to think of it, I want an aircraft carrier too,
and a squadron of F-16s. And an Ohio -class nuclear ballistic missile
submarine. Strictly speaking, why should I not have them?

Nob, you have an interesting perspective. Historically incorrect,
illogical, dense, extremely biased, but interesting. I suggest you go
review what the republican congress did to Clinton before you whine
about what the Democrats are doing to Bush. Back then, the republicans
referred to themselves as 'the loyal opposition.' Now that the shoe is
on the other foot, the republicans call the Democrats anti-American and
treasonous.

I'm sure you didn't really mean to say that. Nobody could knowingly be
that hypocritical.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From:
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:47:34 GMT

Nob, you should start all your political posts with a disclaimer: "The
following is a paid political advertisement of the GOP. I am Nob, and I
approve of this message."


First off, I'm not a member of the GOP and have only voted for one GOP
candidate. Secondly, who the **** is Nob?

You state several times that what I said is "An opinion (I) get to
have."

That's true. Just like I get to have one that's different.

All opinions are not equal. I don't think your opinion in this case is
as valid as my opinion.

An opinion you get to have.

What years exactly did you serve in uniform?

1967-1970

What grade did you hold when you left?
E-4.

You mention that you've talked
with soldiers in Iraq. Are these on the news, friends of friends, or
people you personally know?

All of the above.

I get to have opinions based on 21 years in uniform, from 1984 to 2005.
I commanded three units in that time. I entered service as a PV2. I
retired as a major last October. I have been deployed. I have earned
imminent danger/hostile fire pay.

We just called it hazardous duty pay when we were in RVN.

The people I talk to in Iraq and
Afghanistan are friends of mine. Some hold high rank. Some are
enlisted. Some are commanding units on the ground. Some are fliers.
They are there right now. I hear the opinions they get to have without
the media or White House filter.

As do I.

I would suggest that my opinion could be qualified as an 'expert'
opinion. Can you say the same?


I would suggest that your opinion is no more valid than mine since it is
based on hearsay, just like mine is, plus your political bias, which I have
as well but it is not from a right wing point of view as you keep inferring.

On to your propaganda:

Since when is Bush a leftist?

He's not, he's just reacting to the politics of that moment, where the
Dems
were trying to make it seem like we didn't have enough people in uniform.

"In uniform" includes the Air Force and the Navy. We probably have
enough there. The Army and Marines are doing the bulk of the taskings
in Afghanistan and Iraq. Further, over 50% of those currently deployed
are reservists.

Yes and they tend to be less motivated in my experience. Whe I was in Basic
training in 1967, the National Gaurdsmen used to joke about the fact that NG
stood for Not Going. The ER's had essentially the same mindset.

Here's another factoid for you: not only is recruiting
down, but the pipeline of people leaving active duty and going into the
reserves is basically dry.

Not surprised, since they probably had not envisoned ever having to serve in
combat.

People are getting out and staying out.
These are numbers, not opinions. As these reservists go into their
second and third deployments, they come back and their jobs are gone.
Divorce rates are up. They face all kinds of problems when they get
back. I have also started hearing about firms passing on reservists as
employees because of the fear that they will be deployed.
And yes, I
know very well about the legal protections offered to soldiers that get
deployed. As with anything else, there are ways aound those laws.

We do not have enough people in uniform. It's getting worse, not
better. It's not political or opinion. It's a fact I get to have. And
we still have not talked about equipment readiness.

You'd think your buddies the Liberals would have been more generous with the
money they want the taxpayers tof ork overa had make sure we had enough to
keep up.

Translation: the military has lots of cool weapons. We're not afraid to
use them. They've been all over the world using them recently.

Sure, Clinton had them all over the place.

LOL! The old 'blame Clinton' conservative saw.

That's not blaming Clinton, it's just a fact I get to have.

Are you seriously trying
to compare military deployments during the Clinton years to now? You
lose.

**** no, that silly ******* was as incompetent at that as he was with
evrything else except getting blowjobs and feeling our pain.


An opinion you get to have.
An opinion you get to have.
An opinion you get to have.

See above. So are you a chickenhawk, or did you actually serve?

The use of the term Chickenhawk is asinine. People c an support an idea
about going to war and it doesn't reflect negatively on them simply because
tehy have not served. Yes I did serve in RVN. I was there in 1968. You
may recall that was a very busy year there.

If you
served, was it for more than two years, and were you higher than a
corporal when you got out?

Maybe, maybe not. The people I keep hearing from who are staioned in Iraq
are very dedicated to the goals there and don't want to quit. Even if
they
did the only way to make up for what you seem to think is a crisis, would
be
to institute a draft, which would be one of the worst things that could be
done becuase of the lack of dedication of the draftees.

Nice, but irrelevant. Nobody is saying, or to my knowledge has *ever*
said, that those serving are not dedicated. They are. And now that
we're in a quagmire,

We're not in a quagmire, we're in a situation that turned out to be
different than expected, but is completely winnable.

I think it would be irresponsible to pull out
immediately. That does not equal support for Bushie's policies.


It would be irresponible to pull out before the Iraqi's can defend
themselves.

Now ask the reservists and soldiers what their job prospects are when
they get back, whether they'll stay in or get out when their rotation
is over, or whether they want to get deployed again to Iraq or
Afghanistan. Think the answers will be the same? I can tell you what
*I* hear: "I'm gone." That's another fact I get to have.

Same as it was in RVN.


Political bull**** aside, there are large issues facing the readiness
of our military.

Whic the Democrats have a history of rying to subvert, since it doesn't buy
them votes.

That the leadership of the country seems oblivious to
that is alarming to me. Rummy didn't even address equipment issues.
There's no point in addressing those, since you have to have people to
operate the equipment in the first place.

An opinion you get to have. Perhaps if the Dems hadn't been
systematically
trying to dismantle so many of the things that help us gather information,
things would be drastically different.

"It's Clinton's fault!"

Partly, he's on record as "despisng" the miltiary. There's a book out by
the guy who carried the "briefcase" for which Bubba was supposed to have
launch codes, and he states that twice he lost the ****ing codes. As for
the miltiary and the Dems they have a history of not voting for the military
since it takes money away from giveaway programs.

Um, when did the republicans take over the house? 1994? In case you
didn't know how it works, the House appropriates and funds those kind
of things. So how did the Democrats exactly pull this off, given they
were in the minority? That Clinton was one powerful fella.;-)


Same way they were blocking judical appointments when there's not enough
votes to block filibuster.

Then of course there's the fact that when Bin Ladin was offered up on a
silver platter to Clinton, he couldn't think of any reason that could be
used to hold him.

What was the report that Bushie had on September 10th? Something like,
"Osama bin Laden is Going to Hijack Several Planes and Use Them as
Weapons Against Buildings." I think that was it. What did your hero do?
He went on vacation. So let's not go there, OK?

Thazt's been hashed out numerous times and I'm not going over it again
except to say you should have another glass of the Democrat Kool-Aid.


That Democrats are screaming the sky is falling about the military strikes
me as just another bit of politics played for the purpose of trying to
make
Bush look bad.

They don't need to. Bushie manages to do it all by himself.

So the reports just released about the current state of the military
are just Democrats posturing.

That's not what I said. Thanks for proving your dishonesty again.

Can I visit you in your world sometime?
It just seems so simple there.

rant about Alito snipped due to being entirely irrelvant to this
discussion, and factually wrong.

I'll address this one though:

When he was last up for confirmation he was UNANIMOUSLY approved by the
Senate. The Dems seem to
think that they have to fight extra hard because he would be replacing a
swing vote on the Supreme Court.

So in your mind a judge in District Court or a Court of Appeals is
equal to a Supreme Court Justice.

No, but if was qualified then, there's nothing to indicate he's not
qualified now. And you completely ignore the Ruth Bader Ginsburg issue.
All that's required is the nominee be qualified, not that he be a Liberal or
a conservative. The Democrats keepmoving the goal posts. It sued to be
they wanted someone who was considered well qualified by the American Bar,
now they want more, and if they can figure out a way to get still more
they'll go for that as well. The President gets to nominate who he wants
and as long as that person is qualified the Senate should vote to confirm.
That's the way teh GOP does it, or else Ginsburg would not be on the bench.

Can I visit your world sometime? And
all you have to be is 'qualified?' Then what was the problem with
Miers?
The GOP didn't think she was qualified, nor did most other people.

Or in your opinion should she have been confirmed?

Ninny.

Pinko.

As for being a 'strict follower' of the Constitution: I want to own a
couple of nuclear weapons. According to the Bill of Rights, I have a
right to bear arms. The Constitution does not specify which arms those
strictly might be. Come to think of it, I want an aircraft carrier too,
and a squadron of F-16s. And an Ohio -class nuclear ballistic missile
submarine. Strictly speaking, why should I not have them?

So you're for gun control? Why is it you leftists always take things to the
most absurd extremes?
Of course the evidence that gun control doiesn't work has never stoped you
guys from wanting more of it. How about we try enforcing the 300 or so laws
concerning gus we already have on the books?


Nob, you have an interesting perspective. Historically incorrect,
illogical, dense, extremely biased, but interesting.

So we have that in common.

I suggest you go
review what the republican congress did to Clinton before you whine
about what the Democrats are doing to Bush.

I suggest yo pull you head out of your ass and look at what Clinton did to
himself and the country. Why the **** do the N. Koreans have the ****ing
bomb? Bubba gave them the stuff to make it.

Back then, the republicans
referred to themselves as 'the loyal opposition.' Now that the shoe is
on the other foot, the republicans call the Democrats anti-American and
treasonous.

And now you get one of the reasons why I don't vote for them.

I'm sure you didn't really mean to say that. Nobody could knowingly be
that hypocritical.

You haven't heard of Howard Dean or Teddy Kennedy, or Barbara Boxer?
The Dems have more than their share of whack jobs.