OT Rush Limbaugh defines Conservatives for Liberals....they will never get it....from the Wall Street Journal

From the Wall Street Journal...



Holding Court
There's a crackdown over Miers, not a "crackup."

BY RUSH LIMBAUGH
Monday, October 17, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

I love being a conservative. We conservatives are proud of our
philosophy. Unlike our liberal friends, who are constantly looking for
new words to conceal their true beliefs and are in a perpetual state
of reinvention, we conservatives are unapologetic about our ideals. We
are confident in our principles and energetic about openly advancing
them. We believe in individual liberty, limited government,
capitalism, the rule of law, faith, a color-blind society and national
security. We support school choice, enterprise zones, tax cuts,
welfare reform, faith-based initiatives, political speech, homeowner
rights and the war on terrorism. And at our core we embrace and
celebrate the most magnificent governing document ever ratified by any
nation--the U.S. Constitution. Along with the Declaration of
Independence, which recognizes our God-given natural right to be free,
it is the foundation on which our government is built and has enabled
us to flourish as a people.





We conservatives are never stronger than when we are advancing our
principles. And that's the nature of our current debate over the
nomination of Harriet Miers. Will she respect the Constitution? Will
she be an originalist who will accept the limited role of the
judiciary to interpret and uphold it, and leave the elected
branches--we, the people--to set public policy? Given the
extraordinary power the Supreme Court has seized from the
representative parts of our government, this is no small matter. Roe
v. Wade is a primary example of judicial activism. Regardless of one's
position on abortion, seven unelected and unaccountable justices
simply did not have the constitutional authority to impose their
pro-abortion views on the nation. The Constitution empowers the
people, through their elected representatives in Congress or the state
legislatures, to make this decision.
Abortion is only one of countless areas in which a mere nine lawyers
in robes have imposed their personal policy preferences on the rest of
us. The court has conferred due process rights on terrorists detained
at Guantanamo Bay and benefits on illegal immigrants. It has ruled
that animated cyberspace child pornography is protected speech, but
certain broadcast ads aired before elections are illegal; it has held
that the Ten Commandments can't be displayed in a public building, but
they can be displayed outside a public building; and the court has
invented rationales to skirt the Constitution, such as using foreign
law to strike down juvenile death penalty statutes in over a dozen
states.

For decades conservatives have considered judicial abuse a direct
threat to our Constitution and our form of government. The framers
didn't create a judicial oligarchy. They created a representative
republic. Our opposition to judicial activism runs deep. We've
witnessed too many occasions where Republican presidents have
nominated the wrong candidates to the court, and we want more
assurances this time--some proof. The left, on the other hand, sees
the courts as the only way to advance their big-government agenda.
They can't win national elections if they're open about their agenda.
So, they seek to impose their policies by judicial fiat. It's time to
call them on it. And that's what many of us had hoped and expected
when the president made his nomination.

Some liberal commentators mistakenly view the passionate debate among
conservatives over the Miers nomination as a "crackup" on the right.
They are giddy about "splits" in the conservative base of the GOP.
They are predicting doom for the rest of the president's term and
gloom for Republican electoral chances in 2006. As usual, liberals
don't understand conservatives and never will.

The Miers nomination shows the strength of the conservative movement.
This is no "crackup." It's a crackdown. We conservatives are unified
in our objectives. And we are organized to advance them. The purpose
of the Miers debate is to ensure that we are doing the very best we
can to move the nation in the right direction. And when all is said
and done, we will be even stronger and more focused on our agenda and
defeating those who obstruct it, just in time for 2006 and 2008. Lest
anyone forget, for several years before the 1980 election, we had
knockdown battles within the GOP. The result: Ronald Reagan won two
massive landslides.





The real crackup has already occurred--on the left! The Democratic
Party has been hijacked by 1960s retreads like Howard Dean;
billionaire eccentrics like George Soros; and leftwing computer geeks
like Moveon.org. It nominated John Kerry, a notorious Vietnam-era
antiwar activist, as its presidential standard-bearer. Its major
spokesmen are old extremists like Ted Kennedy and new propagandists
like Michael Moore. Its great presidential hope is one of the most
divisive figures in U.S. politics, Hillary Clinton. And its favorite
son is an impeached, disbarred, held-in-contempt ex-president, Bill
Clinton.
The Democratic Party today is split over the war and a host of
cultural issues, such as same-sex marriage and partial birth abortion.
It wants to raise taxes, but dares not say so. It can't decide what
message to convey to the American people or how to convey it. And even
its once- reliable allies in the big media aren't as influential in
promoting the party and its agenda as they were in the past. The new
media--talk radio, the Internet and cable TV--not only have a growing
following, but have helped expose the bias and falsehoods of the
big-media, e.g., Dan Rather, CBS News and the forged National Guard
documents. Hence, circulation and audience is down, and dropping.

The American left is stuck trying to repeat the history of its
presumed glory years. They hope people will see Iraq as Vietnam, the
entirety of the Bush administration as Watergate and Hurricane Katrina
as the Great Depression. Beyond looking to the past for their
salvation, the problem is that they continue to deceive even
themselves. None of their comparisons are true. Meanwhile, we
conservatives will continue to focus on making history.

Mr. Limbaugh is a radio-show host. This is the latest in our
occasional series.
--

Scott in Florida

Still Voting Democratic?

You are Stuck On Stupid!

"Scott in Florida" wrote

<A lot of Rush Limbaugh claptrap snipped>

Scott do you also use 'Carl A in Florida' as a handle? Just
curious cause he posted the same BS on another ng today.

And Limbaugh is still a 2-bit jerk.

--
wingnut

Your are entitled to you opinion but alas we noticed you could not rebut a
single thing Mr. Limbaugh had to say on the subject. Please enumerate your
opposing liberal philosophy for our edification if you can. LOL

BY RUSH LIMBAUGH
Monday, October 17, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

I love being a conservative. We conservatives are proud of our
philosophy. Unlike our liberal friends, who are constantly looking for
new words to conceal their true beliefs and are in a perpetual state
of reinvention, we conservatives are unapologetic about our ideals. We
are confident in our principles and energetic about openly advancing
them. We believe in individual liberty, limited government,
capitalism, the rule of law, faith, a color-blind society and national
security. We support school choice, enterprise zones, tax cuts,
welfare reform, faith-based initiatives, political speech, homeowner
rights and the war on terrorism. And at our core we embrace and
celebrate the most magnificent governing document ever ratified by any
nation--the U.S. Constitution. Along with the Declaration of
Independence, which recognizes our God-given natural right to be free,
it is the foundation on which our government is built and has enabled
us to flourish as a people.

We conservatives are never stronger than when we are advancing our
principles. And that's the nature of our current debate over the
nomination of Harriet Miers. Will she respect the Constitution? Will
she be an originalist who will accept the limited role of the
judiciary to interpret and uphold it, and leave the elected
branches--we, the people--to set public policy? Given the
extraordinary power the Supreme Court has seized from the
representative parts of our government, this is no small matter. Roe
v. Wade is a primary example of judicial activism. Regardless of one's
position on abortion, seven unelected and unaccountable justices
simply did not have the constitutional authority to impose their
pro-abortion views on the nation. The Constitution empowers the
people, through their elected representatives in Congress or the state
legislatures, to make this decision.
Abortion is only one of countless areas in which a mere nine lawyers
in robes have imposed their personal policy preferences on the rest of
us. The court has conferred due process rights on terrorists detained
at Guantanamo Bay and benefits on illegal immigrants. It has ruled
that animated cyberspace child pornography is protected speech, but
certain broadcast ads aired before elections are illegal; it has held
that the Ten Commandments can't be displayed in a public building, but
they can be displayed outside a public building; and the court has
invented rationales to skirt the Constitution, such as using foreign
law to strike down juvenile death penalty statutes in over a dozen
states.

For decades conservatives have considered judicial abuse a direct
threat to our Constitution and our form of government. The framers
didn't create a judicial oligarchy. They created a representative
republic. Our opposition to judicial activism runs deep. We've
witnessed too many occasions where Republican presidents have
nominated the wrong candidates to the court, and we want more
assurances this time--some proof. The left, on the other hand, sees
the courts as the only way to advance their big-government agenda.
They can't win national elections if they're open about their agenda.
So, they seek to impose their policies by judicial fiat. It's time to
call them on it. And that's what many of us had hoped and expected
when the president made his nomination.

Some liberal commentators mistakenly view the passionate debate among
conservatives over the Miers nomination as a "crackup" on the right.
They are giddy about "splits" in the conservative base of the GOP.
They are predicting doom for the rest of the president's term and
gloom for Republican electoral chances in 2006. As usual, liberals
don't understand conservatives and never will.

The Miers nomination shows the strength of the conservative movement.
This is no "crackup." It's a crackdown. We conservatives are unified
in our objectives. And we are organized to advance them. The purpose
of the Miers debate is to ensure that we are doing the very best we
can to move the nation in the right direction. And when all is said
and done, we will be even stronger and more focused on our agenda and
defeating those who obstruct it, just in time for 2006 and 2008. Lest
anyone forget, for several years before the 1980 election, we had
knockdown battles within the GOP. The result: Ronald Reagan won two
massive landslides.

The real crackup has already occurred--on the left! The Democratic
Party has been hijacked by 1960s retreads like Howard Dean;
billionaire eccentrics like George Soros; and leftwing computer geeks
like Moveon.org. It nominated John Kerry, a notorious Vietnam-era
antiwar activist, as its presidential standard-bearer. Its major
spokesmen are old extremists like Ted Kennedy and new propagandists
like Michael Moore. Its great presidential hope is one of the most
divisive figures in U.S. politics, Hillary Clinton. And its favorite
son is an impeached, disbarred, held-in-contempt ex-president, Bill
Clinton.
The Democratic Party today is split over the war and a host of
cultural issues, such as same-sex marriage and partial birth abortion.
It wants to raise taxes, but dares not say so. It can't decide what
message to convey to the American people or how to convey it. And even
its once- reliable allies in the big media aren't as influential in
promoting the party and its agenda as they were in the past. The new
media--talk radio, the Internet and cable TV--not only have a growing
following, but have helped expose the bias and falsehoods of the
big-media, e.g., Dan Rather, CBS News and the forged National Guard
documents. Hence, circulation and audience is down, and dropping.

The American left is stuck trying to repeat the history of its
presumed glory years. They hope people will see Iraq as Vietnam, the
entirety of the Bush administration as Watergate and Hurricane Katrina
as the Great Depression. Beyond looking to the past for their
salvation, the problem is that they continue to deceive even
themselves. None of their comparisons are true. Meanwhile, we
conservatives will continue to focus on making history.

Mr. Limbaugh is a radio-show host. This is the latest in our
occasional series.

"wingnut" <cparker429@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:JWR4f.41992$Q53.14102@tornado.texas.rr.com...[color=blue]
> "Scott in Florida" wrote
>
> <A lot of Rush Limbaugh claptrap snipped>
>
> Scott do you also use 'Carl A in Florida' as a handle? Just curious cause
> he posted the same BS on another ng today.
>
> And Limbaugh is still a 2-bit jerk.
>
> --
> wingnut
>[/color]

Mike Hunter wrote:[color=blue]
> Your are entitled to you opinion but alas we noticed you could not
> rebut a single thing Mr. Limbaugh had to say on the subject. Please
> enumerate your opposing liberal philosophy for our edification if you
> can. LOL[/color]

So are you. It's save a bunch of time if one simply points out the obvious:
If limbaugh is breathing out and there's noise, it's a lie.

FanJet, 10/17/2005, 4:56:03 PM, <DdU4f.1$ZA3.170@monger.newsread.com>
wrote:
[color=blue]
> Mike Hunter wrote:[color=green]
> > Your are entitled to you opinion but alas we noticed you could not
> > rebut a single thing Mr. Limbaugh had to say on the subject. Please
> > enumerate your opposing liberal philosophy for our edification if
> > you can. LOL[/color]
>
> So are you. It's save a bunch of time if one simply points out the
> obvious: If limbaugh is breathing out and there's noise, it's a lie.[/color]

Have you listened to him or are you merely repeating someone else's
opinion? Listen for a week yourself and see if your assertion is
actually true.

--
"Talking to a golf ball won't do you any good. Unless you do it while
your opponent is teeing off." -- Bruce Lansky

badgolferman wrote:[color=blue]
> FanJet, 10/17/2005, 4:56:03 PM, <DdU4f.1$ZA3.170@monger.newsread.com>
> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Mike Hunter wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> Your are entitled to you opinion but alas we noticed you could not
>>> rebut a single thing Mr. Limbaugh had to say on the subject. Please
>>> enumerate your opposing liberal philosophy for our edification if
>>> you can. LOL[/color]
>>
>> So are you. It's save a bunch of time if one simply points out the
>> obvious: If limbaugh is breathing out and there's noise, it's a lie.[/color]
>
> Have you listened to him or are you merely repeating someone else's
> opinion? Listen for a week yourself and see if your assertion is
> actually true.[/color]

Since I form my own opinions, I have no need to repeat those of others. Just
so you don't miss it, this fact correctly infers that I have listened to
limbaugh.

"Scott in Florida" <JustAsk@Florida.com> wrote in message
news:nfp7l1hpf60su36jmsd6if9s8l8e82fked@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> From the Wall Street Journal...
>
>
>
> Holding Court
> There's a crackdown over Miers, not a "crackup."
>
> BY RUSH LIMBAUGH
> Monday, October 17, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT
>
> I love being a conservative. We conservatives are proud of our
> philosophy. Unlike our liberal friends, who are constantly looking for
> new words to conceal their true beliefs and are in a perpetual state
> of reinvention, we conservatives are unapologetic about our ideals. We
> are confident in our principles and energetic about openly advancing
> them. We believe in individual liberty,[/color]
Bla bla bla,
[color=blue]
>limited government,[/color]

I do too, to bad government has grown at an unprecidented rate under Bush
[color=blue]
> capitalism, the rule of law, faith, a color-blind society and national
> security. We support school choice, enterprise zones, tax cuts,
> welfare reform,[/color]
Sounds good.
[color=blue]
> faith-based initiatives[/color]
What faith would that be. Oh right Right wing white protestants.
Too bad these morons don't support the constitution and
a little thing called separation of church and state
[color=blue]
> , political speech, homeowner
> rights[/color]

Like the rights of the homeowners that got their land stolen by GWB
and the other developers through the use of immanent domain.
[color=blue]
> and the war on terrorism.[/color]

Are you confusing the war on terrorism with the war in Iraq again.
Rush isn't too bright is he?
[color=blue]
>And at our core we embrace and
> celebrate the most magnificent governing document ever ratified by any
> nation--the U.S. Constitution.[/color]

Well, when it's convienent that is. Not like those nasty ACLU types
that support it good or bad.

[color=blue]
> Along with the Declaration of
> Independence, which recognizes our God-given natural right to be free,
> it is the foundation on which our government is built and has enabled
> us to flourish as a people.[/color]

A conservative only idea? What a moron
[color=blue]
>
> We conservatives are never stronger than when we are advancing our
> principles.[/color]

Like screwing the rights of individuals so you can advance your
religious agenda. i.e.. Terry Sciavo. Stem Cell research, abortion
rights.

And that's the nature of our current debate over the[color=blue]
> nomination of Harriet Miers. Will she respect the Constitution? Will
> she be an originalist who will accept the limited role of the
> judiciary to interpret and uphold it, and leave the elected
> branches--we, the people--to set public policy? Given the
> extraordinary power the Supreme Court has seized from the
> representative parts of our government, this is no small matter. Roe
> v. Wade is a primary example of judicial activism. Regardless of one's
> position on abortion, seven unelected and unaccountable justices
> simply did not have the constitutional authority to impose their
> pro-abortion views on the nation. The Constitution empowers the
> people, through their elected representatives in Congress or the state
> legislatures, to make this decision.
> Abortion is only one of countless areas in which a mere nine lawyers
> in robes have imposed their personal policy preferences on the rest of
> us. The court has conferred due process rights on terrorists detained
> at Guantanamo Bay and benefits on illegal immigrants. It has ruled
> that animated cyberspace child pornography is protected speech, but
> certain broadcast ads aired before elections are illegal; it has held
> that the Ten Commandments can't be displayed in a public building, but
> they can be displayed outside a public building; and the court has
> invented rationales to skirt the Constitution, such as using foreign
> law to strike down juvenile death penalty statutes in over a dozen
> states.[/color]

More hot air. Why doesn't the genius Rush tell us why she's
qualified instead of blowing smoke out his ass.

[color=blue]
>
> For decades conservatives have considered judicial abuse a direct
> threat to our Constitution and our form of government. The framers
> didn't create a judicial oligarchy. They created a representative
> republic. Our opposition to judicial activism runs deep. We've
> witnessed too many occasions where Republican presidents have
> nominated the wrong candidates to the court, and we want more
> assurances this time--some proof. The left, on the other hand, sees
> the courts as the only way to advance their big-government agenda.
> They can't win national elections if they're open about their agenda.
> So, they seek to impose their policies by judicial fiat. It's time to
> call them on it. And that's what many of us had hoped and expected
> when the president made his nomination.[/color]

Bunch of Bull. The conservatives desperately want an activist Judge. So
do the democrats. If Bush wanted a true constitutional judge, Meirs would
be pretty far down on the list.

[color=blue]
>
> Some liberal commentators mistakenly view the passionate debate among
> conservatives over the Miers nomination as a "crackup" on the right.
> They are giddy about "splits" in the conservative base of the GOP.
> They are predicting doom for the rest of the president's term and
> gloom for Republican electoral chances in 2006. As usual, liberals
> don't understand conservatives and never will.
>[/color]

Miers is a lousy choice and most conservatives realise this. Personally
I think the liberals should be thrilled at this choice, the'll get a weak
judge
that can easily be influenced.

[color=blue]
> The Miers nomination shows the strength of the conservative movement.
> This is no "crackup." It's a crackdown. We conservatives are unified
> in our objectives. And we are organized to advance them. The purpose
> of the Miers debate is to ensure that we are doing the very best we
> can to move the nation in the right direction. And when all is said
> and done, we will be even stronger and more focused on our agenda and
> defeating those who obstruct it, just in time for 2006 and 2008. Lest
> anyone forget, for several years before the 1980 election, we had
> knockdown battles within the GOP.[/color]

Too bad the rest of the GOP doesn't agree with you on Miers


The result: Ronald Reagan won two[color=blue]
> massive landslides.
>[/color]

And Clinton beat Bush and beat Dole in a massive landside so what.
Bush isn't even close to being a Reagan.

[color=blue]
>
> The real crackup has already occurred--on the left! The Democratic
> Party has been hijacked by 1960s retreads like Howard Dean;
> billionaire eccentrics like George Soros; and leftwing computer geeks
> like Moveon.org. It nominated John Kerry, a notorious Vietnam-era
> antiwar activist, as its presidential standard-bearer. Its major
> spokesmen are old extremists like Ted Kennedy and new propagandists
> like Michael Moore. Its great presidential hope is one of the most
> divisive figures in U.S. politics, Hillary Clinton.[/color]

Well I can't argue with that.

And its favorite[color=blue]
> son is an impeached, disbarred, held-in-contempt ex-president, Bill
> Clinton.[/color]

Rush, now your making things up. Too bad most stupid
conservatives will believe your nonsense.
[color=blue]
> The Democratic Party today is split over the war and a host of
> cultural issues, such as same-sex marriage and partial birth abortion.
> It wants to raise taxes, but dares not say so. It can't decide what
> message to convey to the American people or how to convey it. And even
> its once- reliable allies in the big media aren't as influential in
> promoting the party and its agenda as they were in the past. The new
> media--talk radio, the Internet and cable TV--not only have a growing
> following, but have helped expose the bias and falsehoods of the
> big-media, e.g., Dan Rather, CBS News and the forged National Guard
> documents. Hence, circulation and audience is down, and dropping.[/color]

Well this is true. The democrats need to re-invent themselves.
Nobody wants to vote for another NE liberal.
[color=blue]
>
> The American left is stuck trying to repeat the history of its
> presumed glory years. They hope people will see Iraq as Vietnam, the
> entirety of the Bush administration as Watergate and Hurricane Katrina
> as the Great Depression.[/color]

Hurricane Katrina as the Great Depression? What the fuck is this idiot
talking about?
[color=blue]
> Beyond looking to the past for their
> salvation, the problem is that they continue to deceive even
> themselves. None of their comparisons are true. Meanwhile, we
> conservatives will continue to focus on making history.[/color]

As making the biggest military blunder in US history.
As having the most incompetent and corrupt administration ever?
Making history not always a good thing.
[color=blue]
>[/color]

ToMh, 10/17/2005, 6:28:55 PM,
<1129588161.63c692ba92268b05df13e6bef751d343@teranews> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
> > limited government,[/color]
>
> I do too, to bad government has grown at an unprecidented rate under
> Bush[/color]

Homeland Security is a big reason. Maybe we should disband some of the
other ones, like Education.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > faith-based initiatives[/color]
> What faith would that be. Oh right Right wing white protestants.
> Too bad these morons don't support the constitution and
> a little thing called separation of church and state[/color]

I tried looking up separation of church and state in the Constitution
but couldn't find it. Can you help me out please?
[color=blue][color=green]
> > , political speech, homeowner
> > rights[/color]
>
> Like the rights of the homeowners that got their land stolen by GWB
> and the other developers through the use of immanent domain.[/color]

The legislative Supreme Court is to blame for that.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > and the war on terrorism.[/color]
>
> Are you confusing the war on terrorism with the war in Iraq again.
> Rush isn't too bright is he?[/color]

The war on terrorism is being fought mainly in Iraq, not in your front
yard.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > And at our core we embrace and
> > celebrate the most magnificent governing document ever ratified by
> > any nation--the U.S. Constitution.[/color]
>
> Well, when it's convienent that is. Not like those nasty ACLU types
> that support it good or bad.[/color]

The ACLU has evolved into an organization that hates America and loves
America-haters.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > We conservatives are never stronger than when we are advancing our
> > principles.[/color]
>
> Like screwing the rights of individuals so you can advance your
> religious agenda. i.e.. Terry Sciavo. Stem Cell research, abortion
> rights.[/color]

The Legislative Branch is supposed to be the voice of the people and
the one which creates laws. If the majority of people want it a
certain way then too bad for the others.
[color=blue]
> Why doesn't the genius Rush tell us why she's
> qualified instead of blowing smoke out his ass.[/color]

I'm no fan of Miers, but she is as qualified as a third of those who
have sat on the bench. The President gets to choose and the Senate
gets to say yes or no. I'm not sure there is a rule that states what
qualifications are necessary, do you?
[color=blue]
> Bunch of Bull. The conservatives desperately want an activist Judge.
> So do the democrats. If Bush wanted a true constitutional judge,
> Meirs would be pretty far down on the list.[/color]

I guess the Senate will decide that one.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > Some liberal commentators mistakenly view the passionate debate
> > among conservatives over the Miers nomination as a "crackup" on the
> > right. They are giddy about "splits" in the conservative base of
> > the GOP. They are predicting doom for the rest of the president's
> > term and gloom for Republican electoral chances in 2006. As usual,
> > liberals don't understand conservatives and never will.[/color]
>
> Miers is a lousy choice and most conservatives realise this.
> Personally I think the liberals should be thrilled at this choice,
> the'll get a weak judge that can easily be influenced.[/color]

You may be right.
[color=blue]
> The result: Ronald Reagan won two[color=green]
> > massive landslides.[/color]
>
> And Clinton beat Bush and beat Dole in a massive landside so what.
> Bush isn't even close to being a Reagan.[/color]

At least he's got the balls to stand up to someone like Reagan did.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > The real crackup has already occurred--on the left! The Democratic
> > Party has been hijacked by 1960s retreads like Howard Dean;
> > billionaire eccentrics like George Soros; and leftwing computer
> > geeks like Moveon.org. It nominated John Kerry, a notorious
> > Vietnam-era antiwar activist, as its presidential standard-bearer.
> > Its major spokesmen are old extremists like Ted Kennedy and new
> > propagandists like Michael Moore. Its great presidential hope is
> > one of the most divisive figures in U.S. politics, Hillary Clinton.[/color]
>
> Well I can't argue with that.[/color]

You're starting to see what the Democrats stand for now.
[color=blue]
> And its favorite[color=green]
> > son is an impeached, disbarred, held-in-contempt ex-president, Bill
> > Clinton.[/color]
>
> Rush, now your making things up. Too bad most stupid
> conservatives will believe your nonsense.[/color]

He was impeached, disbarred and held in contempt. Where were you 7-8
years ago?
[color=blue][color=green]
> > The Democratic Party today is split over the war and a host of
> > cultural issues, such as same-sex marriage and partial birth
> > abortion. It wants to raise taxes, but dares not say so. It can't
> > decide what message to convey to the American people or how to
> > convey it. And even its once- reliable allies in the big media
> > aren't as influential in promoting the party and its agenda as they
> > were in the past. The new media--talk radio, the Internet and cable
> > TV--not only have a growing following, but have helped expose the
> > bias and falsehoods of the big-media, e.g., Dan Rather, CBS News
> > and the forged National Guard documents. Hence, circulation and
> > audience is down, and dropping.[/color]
>
> Well this is true. The democrats need to re-invent themselves.
> Nobody wants to vote for another NE liberal.[/color]

I see a light is coming on for you.

--
"The difference in golf and government is that in golf you can't
improve your lie." --George Deukmejian

"badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:xn0e8lwkaooi6o00b@news.readfreenews.net...[color=blue]
> ToMh, 10/17/2005, 6:28:55 PM,
> <1129588161.63c692ba92268b05df13e6bef751d343@teranews> wrote:
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>> > limited government,[/color]
>>
>> I do too, to bad government has grown at an unprecidented rate under
>> Bush[/color]
>
> Homeland Security is a big reason. Maybe we should disband some of the
> other ones, like Education.[/color]

One reason of many, but the fact is government has grown to
and unprecidented size, so Rush is full of shit now osn't he?
[color=blue]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>> > faith-based initiatives[/color]
>> What faith would that be. Oh right Right wing white protestants.
>> Too bad these morons don't support the constitution and
>> a little thing called separation of church and state[/color]
>
> I tried looking up separation of church and state in the Constitution
> but couldn't find it. Can you help me out please?
>[/color]
The first phrase in the First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion..." is called the establishment
clause.
The courts have the responsibility to interpret the U.S. Constitution in
specific instances. In 1947, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled:
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at
least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.
Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer
one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to
or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a
belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for
entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church
attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be
levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they
may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice
religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or
secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or
groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against
establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation
between Church and State'."


[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>> > , political speech, homeowner
>> > rights[/color]
>>
>> Like the rights of the homeowners that got their land stolen by GWB
>> and the other developers through the use of immanent domain.[/color]
>
> The legislative Supreme Court is to blame for that.[/color]

And republicans have no problem benefiting from it.
[color=blue]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>> > and the war on terrorism.[/color]
>>
>> Are you confusing the war on terrorism with the war in Iraq again.
>> Rush isn't too bright is he?[/color]
>
> The war on terrorism is being fought mainly in Iraq, not in your front
> yard.
>[/color]

Can't even begin on how stupid that argument is, but if you still believe
that despite all the evidence to contrary, then there's not much point
educating
you now.

[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>> > And at our core we embrace and
>> > celebrate the most magnificent governing document ever ratified by
>> > any nation--the U.S. Constitution.[/color]
>>
>> Well, when it's convienent that is. Not like those nasty ACLU types
>> that support it good or bad.[/color]
>
> The ACLU has evolved into an organization that hates America and loves
> America-haters.[/color]
I don't agree with everything they do either, but you only see the
outrageous
stuff they do. But the point is that conservatives only support the
constitution when it's ideologically convenient. The ACLU supports it's
despite
anybody's ideology, whether you like it or not.




[color=blue]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>> > We conservatives are never stronger than when we are advancing our
>> > principles.[/color]
>>
>> Like screwing the rights of individuals so you can advance your
>> religious agenda. i.e.. Terry Sciavo. Stem Cell research, abortion
>> rights.[/color]
>
> The Legislative Branch is supposed to be the voice of the people and
> the one which creates laws. If the majority of people want it a
> certain way then too bad for the others.[/color]

I was talking about legislating from the bench. Something the Conservatives
try to do all the time.
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>> Why doesn't the genius Rush tell us why she's
>> qualified instead of blowing smoke out his ass.[/color]
>
> I'm no fan of Miers, but she is as qualified as a third of those who
> have sat on the bench. The President gets to choose and the Senate
> gets to say yes or no. I'm not sure there is a rule that states what
> qualifications are necessary, do you?
>[/color]
That's true, but still doesn't change the fact that Miers is a poor choice.


[color=blue][color=green]
>> Bunch of Bull. The conservatives desperately want an activist Judge.
>> So do the democrats. If Bush wanted a true constitutional judge,
>> Meirs would be pretty far down on the list.[/color]
>
> I guess the Senate will decide that one.
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>> > Some liberal commentators mistakenly view the passionate debate
>> > among conservatives over the Miers nomination as a "crackup" on the
>> > right. They are giddy about "splits" in the conservative base of
>> > the GOP. They are predicting doom for the rest of the president's
>> > term and gloom for Republican electoral chances in 2006. As usual,
>> > liberals don't understand conservatives and never will.[/color]
>>
>> Miers is a lousy choice and most conservatives realise this.
>> Personally I think the liberals should be thrilled at this choice,
>> the'll get a weak judge that can easily be influenced.[/color]
>
> You may be right.
>[color=green]
>> The result: Ronald Reagan won two[color=darkred]
>> > massive landslides.[/color]
>>
>> And Clinton beat Bush and beat Dole in a massive landside so what.
>> Bush isn't even close to being a Reagan.[/color]
>
> At least he's got the balls to stand up to someone like Reagan did.
>[/color]
Are you comparing Saddam and Iraq to the Soviet Union? What a joke.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>> > The real crackup has already occurred--on the left! The Democratic
>> > Party has been hijacked by 1960s retreads like Howard Dean;
>> > billionaire eccentrics like George Soros; and leftwing computer
>> > geeks like Moveon.org. It nominated John Kerry, a notorious
>> > Vietnam-era antiwar activist, as its presidential standard-bearer.
>> > Its major spokesmen are old extremists like Ted Kennedy and new
>> > propagandists like Michael Moore. Its great presidential hope is
>> > one of the most divisive figures in U.S. politics, Hillary Clinton.[/color]
>>
>> Well I can't argue with that.[/color]
>
> You're starting to see what the Democrats stand for now.
>[color=green]
>> And its favorite[color=darkred]
>> > son is an impeached, disbarred, held-in-contempt ex-president, Bill
>> > Clinton.[/color]
>>
>> Rush, now your making things up. Too bad most stupid
>> conservatives will believe your nonsense.[/color]
>
> He was impeached, disbarred and held in contempt. Where were you 7-8
> years ago?[/color]

Clinton was never impeached. It takes the Senate to do this, which never
happened. Rush can dream.
[color=blue]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>> > The Democratic Party today is split over the war and a host of
>> > cultural issues, such as same-sex marriage and partial birth
>> > abortion. It wants to raise taxes, but dares not say so. It can't
>> > decide what message to convey to the American people or how to
>> > convey it. And even its once- reliable allies in the big media
>> > aren't as influential in promoting the party and its agenda as they
>> > were in the past. The new media--talk radio, the Internet and cable
>> > TV--not only have a growing following, but have helped expose the
>> > bias and falsehoods of the big-media, e.g., Dan Rather, CBS News
>> > and the forged National Guard documents. Hence, circulation and
>> > audience is down, and dropping.[/color]
>>
>> Well this is true. The democrats need to re-invent themselves.
>> Nobody wants to vote for another NE liberal.[/color]
>
> I see a light is coming on for you.
>[/color]
Two things I hate in politics are far left Liberals and far right
Conservatives.
I don't have much stomach for either.
[color=blue]
> --
> "The difference in golf and government is that in golf you can't
> improve your lie." --George Deukmejian[/color]

In article <1129588161.63c692ba92268b05df13e6bef751d343@teranews>,
"ToMh" <nospam@no_spam.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> "Scott in Florida" <JustAsk@Florida.com> wrote in message
> news:nfp7l1hpf60su36jmsd6if9s8l8e82fked@4ax.com...[color=green]
> > From the Wall Street Journal...
> >
> >
> >
> > Holding Court
> > There's a crackdown over Miers, not a "crackup."
> >
> > BY RUSH LIMBAUGH
> > Monday, October 17, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT
> >
> > I love being a conservative. We conservatives are proud of our
> > philosophy. Unlike our liberal friends, who are constantly looking for
> > new words to conceal their true beliefs and are in a perpetual state
> > of reinvention, we conservatives are unapologetic about our ideals. We
> > are confident in our principles and energetic about openly advancing
> > them. We believe in individual liberty,[/color]
> Bla bla bla,
>[color=green]
> >limited government,[/color]
>
> I do too, to bad government has grown at an unprecidented rate under Bush
>[color=green]
> > capitalism, the rule of law, faith, a color-blind society and national
> > security. We support school choice, enterprise zones, tax cuts,
> > welfare reform,[/color]
> Sounds good.
>[color=green]
> > faith-based initiatives[/color]
> What faith would that be. Oh right Right wing white protestants.
> Too bad these morons don't support the constitution and
> a little thing called separation of church and state
>[color=green]
> > , political speech, homeowner
> > rights[/color]
>
> Like the rights of the homeowners that got their land stolen by GWB
> and the other developers through the use of immanent domain.
>[color=green]
> > and the war on terrorism.[/color]
>
> Are you confusing the war on terrorism with the war in Iraq again.
> Rush isn't too bright is he?
>[color=green]
> >And at our core we embrace and
> > celebrate the most magnificent governing document ever ratified by any
> > nation--the U.S. Constitution.[/color]
>
> Well, when it's convienent that is. Not like those nasty ACLU types
> that support it good or bad.
>
>[color=green]
> > Along with the Declaration of
> > Independence, which recognizes our God-given natural right to be free,
> > it is the foundation on which our government is built and has enabled
> > us to flourish as a people.[/color]
>
> A conservative only idea? What a moron
>[color=green]
> >
> > We conservatives are never stronger than when we are advancing our
> > principles.[/color]
>
> Like screwing the rights of individuals so you can advance your
> religious agenda. i.e.. Terry Sciavo. Stem Cell research, abortion
> rights.
>
> And that's the nature of our current debate over the[color=green]
> > nomination of Harriet Miers. Will she respect the Constitution? Will
> > she be an originalist who will accept the limited role of the
> > judiciary to interpret and uphold it, and leave the elected
> > branches--we, the people--to set public policy? Given the
> > extraordinary power the Supreme Court has seized from the
> > representative parts of our government, this is no small matter. Roe
> > v. Wade is a primary example of judicial activism. Regardless of one's
> > position on abortion, seven unelected and unaccountable justices
> > simply did not have the constitutional authority to impose their
> > pro-abortion views on the nation. The Constitution empowers the
> > people, through their elected representatives in Congress or the state
> > legislatures, to make this decision.
> > Abortion is only one of countless areas in which a mere nine lawyers
> > in robes have imposed their personal policy preferences on the rest of
> > us. The court has conferred due process rights on terrorists detained
> > at Guantanamo Bay and benefits on illegal immigrants. It has ruled
> > that animated cyberspace child pornography is protected speech, but
> > certain broadcast ads aired before elections are illegal; it has held
> > that the Ten Commandments can't be displayed in a public building, but
> > they can be displayed outside a public building; and the court has
> > invented rationales to skirt the Constitution, such as using foreign
> > law to strike down juvenile death penalty statutes in over a dozen
> > states.[/color]
>
> More hot air. Why doesn't the genius Rush tell us why she's
> qualified instead of blowing smoke out his ass.
>
>[color=green]
> >
> > For decades conservatives have considered judicial abuse a direct
> > threat to our Constitution and our form of government. The framers
> > didn't create a judicial oligarchy. They created a representative
> > republic. Our opposition to judicial activism runs deep. We've
> > witnessed too many occasions where Republican presidents have
> > nominated the wrong candidates to the court, and we want more
> > assurances this time--some proof. The left, on the other hand, sees
> > the courts as the only way to advance their big-government agenda.
> > They can't win national elections if they're open about their agenda.
> > So, they seek to impose their policies by judicial fiat. It's time to
> > call them on it. And that's what many of us had hoped and expected
> > when the president made his nomination.[/color]
>
> Bunch of Bull. The conservatives desperately want an activist Judge. So
> do the democrats. If Bush wanted a true constitutional judge, Meirs would
> be pretty far down on the list.
>
>[color=green]
> >
> > Some liberal commentators mistakenly view the passionate debate among
> > conservatives over the Miers nomination as a "crackup" on the right.
> > They are giddy about "splits" in the conservative base of the GOP.
> > They are predicting doom for the rest of the president's term and
> > gloom for Republican electoral chances in 2006. As usual, liberals
> > don't understand conservatives and never will.
> >[/color]
>
> Miers is a lousy choice and most conservatives realise this. Personally
> I think the liberals should be thrilled at this choice, the'll get a weak
> judge
> that can easily be influenced.
>
>[color=green]
> > The Miers nomination shows the strength of the conservative movement.
> > This is no "crackup." It's a crackdown. We conservatives are unified
> > in our objectives. And we are organized to advance them. The purpose
> > of the Miers debate is to ensure that we are doing the very best we
> > can to move the nation in the right direction. And when all is said
> > and done, we will be even stronger and more focused on our agenda and
> > defeating those who obstruct it, just in time for 2006 and 2008. Lest
> > anyone forget, for several years before the 1980 election, we had
> > knockdown battles within the GOP.[/color]
>
> Too bad the rest of the GOP doesn't agree with you on Miers
>
>
> The result: Ronald Reagan won two[color=green]
> > massive landslides.
> >[/color]
>
> And Clinton beat Bush and beat Dole in a massive landside so what.
> Bush isn't even close to being a Reagan.
>
>[color=green]
> >
> > The real crackup has already occurred--on the left! The Democratic
> > Party has been hijacked by 1960s retreads like Howard Dean;
> > billionaire eccentrics like George Soros; and leftwing computer geeks
> > like Moveon.org. It nominated John Kerry, a notorious Vietnam-era
> > antiwar activist, as its presidential standard-bearer. Its major
> > spokesmen are old extremists like Ted Kennedy and new propagandists
> > like Michael Moore. Its great presidential hope is one of the most
> > divisive figures in U.S. politics, Hillary Clinton.[/color]
>
> Well I can't argue with that.
>
> And its favorite[color=green]
> > son is an impeached, disbarred, held-in-contempt ex-president, Bill
> > Clinton.[/color]
>
> Rush, now your making things up. Too bad most stupid
> conservatives will believe your nonsense.
>[color=green]
> > The Democratic Party today is split over the war and a host of
> > cultural issues, such as same-sex marriage and partial birth abortion.
> > It wants to raise taxes, but dares not say so. It can't decide what
> > message to convey to the American people or how to convey it. And even
> > its once- reliable allies in the big media aren't as influential in
> > promoting the party and its agenda as they were in the past. The new
> > media--talk radio, the Internet and cable TV--not only have a growing
> > following, but have helped expose the bias and falsehoods of the
> > big-media, e.g., Dan Rather, CBS News and the forged National Guard
> > documents. Hence, circulation and audience is down, and dropping.[/color]
>
> Well this is true. The democrats need to re-invent themselves.
> Nobody wants to vote for another NE liberal.
>[color=green]
> >
> > The American left is stuck trying to repeat the history of its
> > presumed glory years. They hope people will see Iraq as Vietnam, the
> > entirety of the Bush administration as Watergate and Hurricane Katrina
> > as the Great Depression.[/color]
>
> Hurricane Katrina as the Great Depression? What the fuck is this idiot
> talking about?
>[color=green]
> > Beyond looking to the past for their
> > salvation, the problem is that they continue to deceive even
> > themselves. None of their comparisons are true. Meanwhile, we
> > conservatives will continue to focus on making history.[/color]
>
> As making the biggest military blunder in US history.
> As having the most incompetent and corrupt administration ever?
> Making history not always a good thing.
>[color=green]
> >[/color][/color]

And the biggest moron of all is tom.
--

In article <1129592747.b56a34848cb6bbf751b16bc32c477ead@teranews>,
"ToMh" <nospam@no_spam.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:xn0e8lwkaooi6o00b@news.readfreenews.net...[color=green]
> > ToMh, 10/17/2005, 6:28:55 PM,
> > <1129588161.63c692ba92268b05df13e6bef751d343@teranews> wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> >> > limited government,
> >>
> >> I do too, to bad government has grown at an unprecidented rate under
> >> Bush[/color]
> >
> > Homeland Security is a big reason. Maybe we should disband some of the
> > other ones, like Education.[/color]
>
> One reason of many, but the fact is government has grown to
> and unprecidented size, so Rush is full of shit now osn't he?
>[color=green]
> >[color=darkred]
> >> > faith-based initiatives
> >> What faith would that be. Oh right Right wing white protestants.
> >> Too bad these morons don't support the constitution and
> >> a little thing called separation of church and state[/color]
> >
> > I tried looking up separation of church and state in the Constitution
> > but couldn't find it. Can you help me out please?
> >[/color]
> The first phrase in the First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law
> respecting an establishment of religion..." is called the establishment
> clause.
> The courts have the responsibility to interpret the U.S. Constitution in
> specific instances. In 1947, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled:
> "The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at
> least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.
> Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer
> one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to
> or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a
> belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for
> entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church
> attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be
> levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they
> may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice
> religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or
> secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or
> groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against
> establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation
> between Church and State'."
>
>
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> > , political speech, homeowner
> >> > rights
> >>
> >> Like the rights of the homeowners that got their land stolen by GWB
> >> and the other developers through the use of immanent domain.[/color]
> >
> > The legislative Supreme Court is to blame for that.[/color]
>
> And republicans have no problem benefiting from it.
>[color=green]
> >[color=darkred]
> >> > and the war on terrorism.
> >>
> >> Are you confusing the war on terrorism with the war in Iraq again.
> >> Rush isn't too bright is he?[/color]
> >
> > The war on terrorism is being fought mainly in Iraq, not in your front
> > yard.
> >[/color]
>
> Can't even begin on how stupid that argument is, but if you still believe
> that despite all the evidence to contrary, then there's not much point
> educating
> you now.
>
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> > And at our core we embrace and
> >> > celebrate the most magnificent governing document ever ratified by
> >> > any nation--the U.S. Constitution.
> >>
> >> Well, when it's convienent that is. Not like those nasty ACLU types
> >> that support it good or bad.[/color]
> >
> > The ACLU has evolved into an organization that hates America and loves
> > America-haters.[/color]
> I don't agree with everything they do either, but you only see the
> outrageous
> stuff they do. But the point is that conservatives only support the
> constitution when it's ideologically convenient. The ACLU supports it's
> despite
> anybody's ideology, whether you like it or not.
>
>
>
>
>[color=green]
> >[color=darkred]
> >> > We conservatives are never stronger than when we are advancing our
> >> > principles.
> >>
> >> Like screwing the rights of individuals so you can advance your
> >> religious agenda. i.e.. Terry Sciavo. Stem Cell research, abortion
> >> rights.[/color]
> >
> > The Legislative Branch is supposed to be the voice of the people and
> > the one which creates laws. If the majority of people want it a
> > certain way then too bad for the others.[/color]
>
> I was talking about legislating from the bench. Something the Conservatives
> try to do all the time.
>[color=green]
> >[color=darkred]
> >> Why doesn't the genius Rush tell us why she's
> >> qualified instead of blowing smoke out his ass.[/color]
> >
> > I'm no fan of Miers, but she is as qualified as a third of those who
> > have sat on the bench. The President gets to choose and the Senate
> > gets to say yes or no. I'm not sure there is a rule that states what
> > qualifications are necessary, do you?
> >[/color]
> That's true, but still doesn't change the fact that Miers is a poor choice.
>
>
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> Bunch of Bull. The conservatives desperately want an activist Judge.
> >> So do the democrats. If Bush wanted a true constitutional judge,
> >> Meirs would be pretty far down on the list.[/color]
> >
> > I guess the Senate will decide that one.
> >[color=darkred]
> >> > Some liberal commentators mistakenly view the passionate debate
> >> > among conservatives over the Miers nomination as a "crackup" on the
> >> > right. They are giddy about "splits" in the conservative base of
> >> > the GOP. They are predicting doom for the rest of the president's
> >> > term and gloom for Republican electoral chances in 2006. As usual,
> >> > liberals don't understand conservatives and never will.
> >>
> >> Miers is a lousy choice and most conservatives realise this.
> >> Personally I think the liberals should be thrilled at this choice,
> >> the'll get a weak judge that can easily be influenced.[/color]
> >
> > You may be right.
> >[color=darkred]
> >> The result: Ronald Reagan won two
> >> > massive landslides.
> >>
> >> And Clinton beat Bush and beat Dole in a massive landside so what.
> >> Bush isn't even close to being a Reagan.[/color]
> >
> > At least he's got the balls to stand up to someone like Reagan did.
> >[/color]
> Are you comparing Saddam and Iraq to the Soviet Union? What a joke.
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> > The real crackup has already occurred--on the left! The Democratic
> >> > Party has been hijacked by 1960s retreads like Howard Dean;
> >> > billionaire eccentrics like George Soros; and leftwing computer
> >> > geeks like Moveon.org. It nominated John Kerry, a notorious
> >> > Vietnam-era antiwar activist, as its presidential standard-bearer.
> >> > Its major spokesmen are old extremists like Ted Kennedy and new
> >> > propagandists like Michael Moore. Its great presidential hope is
> >> > one of the most divisive figures in U.S. politics, Hillary Clinton.
> >>
> >> Well I can't argue with that.[/color]
> >
> > You're starting to see what the Democrats stand for now.
> >[color=darkred]
> >> And its favorite
> >> > son is an impeached, disbarred, held-in-contempt ex-president, Bill
> >> > Clinton.
> >>
> >> Rush, now your making things up. Too bad most stupid
> >> conservatives will believe your nonsense.[/color]
> >
> > He was impeached, disbarred and held in contempt. Where were you 7-8
> > years ago?[/color]
>
> Clinton was never impeached. It takes the Senate to do this, which never
> happened. Rush can dream.
>[color=green]
> >[color=darkred]
> >> > The Democratic Party today is split over the war and a host of
> >> > cultural issues, such as same-sex marriage and partial birth
> >> > abortion. It wants to raise taxes, but dares not say so. It can't
> >> > decide what message to convey to the American people or how to
> >> > convey it. And even its once- reliable allies in the big media
> >> > aren't as influential in promoting the party and its agenda as they
> >> > were in the past. The new media--talk radio, the Internet and cable
> >> > TV--not only have a growing following, but have helped expose the
> >> > bias and falsehoods of the big-media, e.g., Dan Rather, CBS News
> >> > and the forged National Guard documents. Hence, circulation and
> >> > audience is down, and dropping.
> >>
> >> Well this is true. The democrats need to re-invent themselves.
> >> Nobody wants to vote for another NE liberal.[/color]
> >
> > I see a light is coming on for you.
> >[/color]
> Two things I hate in politics are far left Liberals and far right
> Conservatives.
> I don't have much stomach for either.
>[color=green]
> > --
> > "The difference in golf and government is that in golf you can't
> > improve your lie." --George Deukmejian[/color][/color]

tom old boy, you sure do like to cuss and swear a lot don't you.

BTW tom, don't try to take the easy way out, you are a flaming liberal
make no mistake about that.
--

In article <JWR4f.41992$Q53.14102@tornado.texas.rr.com>, "wingnut"
<cparker429@houston.rr.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> "Scott in Florida" wrote
>
> <A lot of Rush Limbaugh claptrap snipped>
>
> Scott do you also use 'Carl A in Florida' as a handle? Just
> curious cause he posted the same BS on another ng today.
>
> And Limbaugh is still a 2-bit jerk.
>
> --
> wingnut[/color]

Limbaugh is an ex-druggie blowhard, but that doesn't make him wrong. He's
100% on target with this.

".dbu." <foolishlefties@Zapem.com> wrote in message
news:foolishlefties-B3476E.19021717102005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com...[color=blue]
> In article <1129588161.63c692ba92268b05df13e6bef751d343@teranews>,
> "ToMh" <nospam@no_spam.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> "Scott in Florida" <JustAsk@Florida.com> wrote in message
>> news:nfp7l1hpf60su36jmsd6if9s8l8e82fked@4ax.com...[color=darkred]
>> > From the Wall Street Journal...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Holding Court
>> > There's a crackdown over Miers, not a "crackup."
>> >
>> > BY RUSH LIMBAUGH
>> > Monday, October 17, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT
>> >
>> > I love being a conservative. We conservatives are proud of our
>> > philosophy. Unlike our liberal friends, who are constantly looking for
>> > new words to conceal their true beliefs and are in a perpetual state
>> > of reinvention, we conservatives are unapologetic about our ideals. We
>> > are confident in our principles and energetic about openly advancing
>> > them. We believe in individual liberty,[/color]
>> Bla bla bla,
>>[color=darkred]
>> >limited government,[/color]
>>
>> I do too, to bad government has grown at an unprecidented rate under Bush
>>[color=darkred]
>> > capitalism, the rule of law, faith, a color-blind society and national
>> > security. We support school choice, enterprise zones, tax cuts,
>> > welfare reform,[/color]
>> Sounds good.
>>[color=darkred]
>> > faith-based initiatives[/color]
>> What faith would that be. Oh right Right wing white protestants.
>> Too bad these morons don't support the constitution and
>> a little thing called separation of church and state
>>[color=darkred]
>> > , political speech, homeowner
>> > rights[/color]
>>
>> Like the rights of the homeowners that got their land stolen by GWB
>> and the other developers through the use of immanent domain.
>>[color=darkred]
>> > and the war on terrorism.[/color]
>>
>> Are you confusing the war on terrorism with the war in Iraq again.
>> Rush isn't too bright is he?
>>[color=darkred]
>> >And at our core we embrace and
>> > celebrate the most magnificent governing document ever ratified by any
>> > nation--the U.S. Constitution.[/color]
>>
>> Well, when it's convienent that is. Not like those nasty ACLU types
>> that support it good or bad.
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>> > Along with the Declaration of
>> > Independence, which recognizes our God-given natural right to be free,
>> > it is the foundation on which our government is built and has enabled
>> > us to flourish as a people.[/color]
>>
>> A conservative only idea? What a moron
>>[color=darkred]
>> >
>> > We conservatives are never stronger than when we are advancing our
>> > principles.[/color]
>>
>> Like screwing the rights of individuals so you can advance your
>> religious agenda. i.e.. Terry Sciavo. Stem Cell research, abortion
>> rights.
>>
>> And that's the nature of our current debate over the[color=darkred]
>> > nomination of Harriet Miers. Will she respect the Constitution? Will
>> > she be an originalist who will accept the limited role of the
>> > judiciary to interpret and uphold it, and leave the elected
>> > branches--we, the people--to set public policy? Given the
>> > extraordinary power the Supreme Court has seized from the
>> > representative parts of our government, this is no small matter. Roe
>> > v. Wade is a primary example of judicial activism. Regardless of one's
>> > position on abortion, seven unelected and unaccountable justices
>> > simply did not have the constitutional authority to impose their
>> > pro-abortion views on the nation. The Constitution empowers the
>> > people, through their elected representatives in Congress or the state
>> > legislatures, to make this decision.
>> > Abortion is only one of countless areas in which a mere nine lawyers
>> > in robes have imposed their personal policy preferences on the rest of
>> > us. The court has conferred due process rights on terrorists detained
>> > at Guantanamo Bay and benefits on illegal immigrants. It has ruled
>> > that animated cyberspace child pornography is protected speech, but
>> > certain broadcast ads aired before elections are illegal; it has held
>> > that the Ten Commandments can't be displayed in a public building, but
>> > they can be displayed outside a public building; and the court has
>> > invented rationales to skirt the Constitution, such as using foreign
>> > law to strike down juvenile death penalty statutes in over a dozen
>> > states.[/color]
>>
>> More hot air. Why doesn't the genius Rush tell us why she's
>> qualified instead of blowing smoke out his ass.
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>> >
>> > For decades conservatives have considered judicial abuse a direct
>> > threat to our Constitution and our form of government. The framers
>> > didn't create a judicial oligarchy. They created a representative
>> > republic. Our opposition to judicial activism runs deep. We've
>> > witnessed too many occasions where Republican presidents have
>> > nominated the wrong candidates to the court, and we want more
>> > assurances this time--some proof. The left, on the other hand, sees
>> > the courts as the only way to advance their big-government agenda.
>> > They can't win national elections if they're open about their agenda.
>> > So, they seek to impose their policies by judicial fiat. It's time to
>> > call them on it. And that's what many of us had hoped and expected
>> > when the president made his nomination.[/color]
>>
>> Bunch of Bull. The conservatives desperately want an activist Judge. So
>> do the democrats. If Bush wanted a true constitutional judge, Meirs would
>> be pretty far down on the list.
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>> >
>> > Some liberal commentators mistakenly view the passionate debate among
>> > conservatives over the Miers nomination as a "crackup" on the right.
>> > They are giddy about "splits" in the conservative base of the GOP.
>> > They are predicting doom for the rest of the president's term and
>> > gloom for Republican electoral chances in 2006. As usual, liberals
>> > don't understand conservatives and never will.
>> >[/color]
>>
>> Miers is a lousy choice and most conservatives realise this. Personally
>> I think the liberals should be thrilled at this choice, the'll get a weak
>> judge
>> that can easily be influenced.
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>> > The Miers nomination shows the strength of the conservative movement.
>> > This is no "crackup." It's a crackdown. We conservatives are unified
>> > in our objectives. And we are organized to advance them. The purpose
>> > of the Miers debate is to ensure that we are doing the very best we
>> > can to move the nation in the right direction. And when all is said
>> > and done, we will be even stronger and more focused on our agenda and
>> > defeating those who obstruct it, just in time for 2006 and 2008. Lest
>> > anyone forget, for several years before the 1980 election, we had
>> > knockdown battles within the GOP.[/color]
>>
>> Too bad the rest of the GOP doesn't agree with you on Miers
>>
>>
>> The result: Ronald Reagan won two[color=darkred]
>> > massive landslides.
>> >[/color]
>>
>> And Clinton beat Bush and beat Dole in a massive landside so what.
>> Bush isn't even close to being a Reagan.
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>> >
>> > The real crackup has already occurred--on the left! The Democratic
>> > Party has been hijacked by 1960s retreads like Howard Dean;
>> > billionaire eccentrics like George Soros; and leftwing computer geeks
>> > like Moveon.org. It nominated John Kerry, a notorious Vietnam-era
>> > antiwar activist, as its presidential standard-bearer. Its major
>> > spokesmen are old extremists like Ted Kennedy and new propagandists
>> > like Michael Moore. Its great presidential hope is one of the most
>> > divisive figures in U.S. politics, Hillary Clinton.[/color]
>>
>> Well I can't argue with that.
>>
>> And its favorite[color=darkred]
>> > son is an impeached, disbarred, held-in-contempt ex-president, Bill
>> > Clinton.[/color]
>>
>> Rush, now your making things up. Too bad most stupid
>> conservatives will believe your nonsense.
>>[color=darkred]
>> > The Democratic Party today is split over the war and a host of
>> > cultural issues, such as same-sex marriage and partial birth abortion.
>> > It wants to raise taxes, but dares not say so. It can't decide what
>> > message to convey to the American people or how to convey it. And even
>> > its once- reliable allies in the big media aren't as influential in
>> > promoting the party and its agenda as they were in the past. The new
>> > media--talk radio, the Internet and cable TV--not only have a growing
>> > following, but have helped expose the bias and falsehoods of the
>> > big-media, e.g., Dan Rather, CBS News and the forged National Guard
>> > documents. Hence, circulation and audience is down, and dropping.[/color]
>>
>> Well this is true. The democrats need to re-invent themselves.
>> Nobody wants to vote for another NE liberal.
>>[color=darkred]
>> >
>> > The American left is stuck trying to repeat the history of its
>> > presumed glory years. They hope people will see Iraq as Vietnam, the
>> > entirety of the Bush administration as Watergate and Hurricane Katrina
>> > as the Great Depression.[/color]
>>
>> Hurricane Katrina as the Great Depression? What the fuck is this idiot
>> talking about?
>>[color=darkred]
>> > Beyond looking to the past for their
>> > salvation, the problem is that they continue to deceive even
>> > themselves. None of their comparisons are true. Meanwhile, we
>> > conservatives will continue to focus on making history.[/color]
>>
>> As making the biggest military blunder in US history.
>> As having the most incompetent and corrupt administration ever?
>> Making history not always a good thing.
>>[color=darkred]
>> >[/color][/color]
>
> And the biggest moron of all is tom.
> --[/color]

Ah dumbass Dale with nothing of value to add as usual.

So where does that say that "faith based initiatives" violate the
establishment clause? It doesn't, and they've been ruled
constitutional IIRC.

It puts church charities on the same field as other charities. So it's
neutral with regard to religion. And it's not "white protestant
religions", you fool, it's any religion.

In article <7BX4f.6177$W32.441@trnddc06>, "ToMh" <teelhumm@HotMail.com>
wrote:
[color=blue]
> ".dbu." <foolishlefties@Zapem.com> wrote in message
> news:foolishlefties-B3476E.19021717102005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com...[color=green]
> > In article <1129588161.63c692ba92268b05df13e6bef751d343@teranews>,
> > "ToMh" <nospam@no_spam.com> wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> >> "Scott in Florida" <JustAsk@Florida.com> wrote in message
> >> news:nfp7l1hpf60su36jmsd6if9s8l8e82fked@4ax.com...
> >> > From the Wall Street Journal...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Holding Court
> >> > There's a crackdown over Miers, not a "crackup."
> >> >
> >> > BY RUSH LIMBAUGH
> >> > Monday, October 17, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT
> >> >
> >> > I love being a conservative. We conservatives are proud of our
> >> > philosophy. Unlike our liberal friends, who are constantly looking for
> >> > new words to conceal their true beliefs and are in a perpetual state
> >> > of reinvention, we conservatives are unapologetic about our ideals. We
> >> > are confident in our principles and energetic about openly advancing
> >> > them. We believe in individual liberty,
> >> Bla bla bla,
> >>
> >> >limited government,
> >>
> >> I do too, to bad government has grown at an unprecidented rate under Bush
> >>
> >> > capitalism, the rule of law, faith, a color-blind society and national
> >> > security. We support school choice, enterprise zones, tax cuts,
> >> > welfare reform,
> >> Sounds good.
> >>
> >> > faith-based initiatives
> >> What faith would that be. Oh right Right wing white protestants.
> >> Too bad these morons don't support the constitution and
> >> a little thing called separation of church and state
> >>
> >> > , political speech, homeowner
> >> > rights
> >>
> >> Like the rights of the homeowners that got their land stolen by GWB
> >> and the other developers through the use of immanent domain.
> >>
> >> > and the war on terrorism.
> >>
> >> Are you confusing the war on terrorism with the war in Iraq again.
> >> Rush isn't too bright is he?
> >>
> >> >And at our core we embrace and
> >> > celebrate the most magnificent governing document ever ratified by any
> >> > nation--the U.S. Constitution.
> >>
> >> Well, when it's convienent that is. Not like those nasty ACLU types
> >> that support it good or bad.
> >>
> >>
> >> > Along with the Declaration of
> >> > Independence, which recognizes our God-given natural right to be free,
> >> > it is the foundation on which our government is built and has enabled
> >> > us to flourish as a people.
> >>
> >> A conservative only idea? What a moron
> >>
> >> >
> >> > We conservatives are never stronger than when we are advancing our
> >> > principles.
> >>
> >> Like screwing the rights of individuals so you can advance your
> >> religious agenda. i.e.. Terry Sciavo. Stem Cell research, abortion
> >> rights.
> >>
> >> And that's the nature of our current debate over the
> >> > nomination of Harriet Miers. Will she respect the Constitution? Will
> >> > she be an originalist who will accept the limited role of the
> >> > judiciary to interpret and uphold it, and leave the elected
> >> > branches--we, the people--to set public policy? Given the
> >> > extraordinary power the Supreme Court has seized from the
> >> > representative parts of our government, this is no small matter. Roe
> >> > v. Wade is a primary example of judicial activism. Regardless of one's
> >> > position on abortion, seven unelected and unaccountable justices
> >> > simply did not have the constitutional authority to impose their
> >> > pro-abortion views on the nation. The Constitution empowers the
> >> > people, through their elected representatives in Congress or the state
> >> > legislatures, to make this decision.
> >> > Abortion is only one of countless areas in which a mere nine lawyers
> >> > in robes have imposed their personal policy preferences on the rest of
> >> > us. The court has conferred due process rights on terrorists detained
> >> > at Guantanamo Bay and benefits on illegal immigrants. It has ruled
> >> > that animated cyberspace child pornography is protected speech, but
> >> > certain broadcast ads aired before elections are illegal; it has held
> >> > that the Ten Commandments can't be displayed in a public building, but
> >> > they can be displayed outside a public building; and the court has
> >> > invented rationales to skirt the Constitution, such as using foreign
> >> > law to strike down juvenile death penalty statutes in over a dozen
> >> > states.
> >>
> >> More hot air. Why doesn't the genius Rush tell us why she's
> >> qualified instead of blowing smoke out his ass.
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > For decades conservatives have considered judicial abuse a direct
> >> > threat to our Constitution and our form of government. The framers
> >> > didn't create a judicial oligarchy. They created a representative
> >> > republic. Our opposition to judicial activism runs deep. We've
> >> > witnessed too many occasions where Republican presidents have
> >> > nominated the wrong candidates to the court, and we want more
> >> > assurances this time--some proof. The left, on the other hand, sees
> >> > the courts as the only way to advance their big-government agenda.
> >> > They can't win national elections if they're open about their agenda.
> >> > So, they seek to impose their policies by judicial fiat. It's time to
> >> > call them on it. And that's what many of us had hoped and expected
> >> > when the president made his nomination.
> >>
> >> Bunch of Bull. The conservatives desperately want an activist Judge. So
> >> do the democrats. If Bush wanted a true constitutional judge, Meirs would
> >> be pretty far down on the list.
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Some liberal commentators mistakenly view the passionate debate among
> >> > conservatives over the Miers nomination as a "crackup" on the right.
> >> > They are giddy about "splits" in the conservative base of the GOP.
> >> > They are predicting doom for the rest of the president's term and
> >> > gloom for Republican electoral chances in 2006. As usual, liberals
> >> > don't understand conservatives and never will.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Miers is a lousy choice and most conservatives realise this. Personally
> >> I think the liberals should be thrilled at this choice, the'll get a weak
> >> judge
> >> that can easily be influenced.
> >>
> >>
> >> > The Miers nomination shows the strength of the conservative movement.
> >> > This is no "crackup." It's a crackdown. We conservatives are unified
> >> > in our objectives. And we are organized to advance them. The purpose
> >> > of the Miers debate is to ensure that we are doing the very best we
> >> > can to move the nation in the right direction. And when all is said
> >> > and done, we will be even stronger and more focused on our agenda and
> >> > defeating those who obstruct it, just in time for 2006 and 2008. Lest
> >> > anyone forget, for several years before the 1980 election, we had
> >> > knockdown battles within the GOP.
> >>
> >> Too bad the rest of the GOP doesn't agree with you on Miers
> >>
> >>
> >> The result: Ronald Reagan won two
> >> > massive landslides.
> >> >
> >>
> >> And Clinton beat Bush and beat Dole in a massive landside so what.
> >> Bush isn't even close to being a Reagan.
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > The real crackup has already occurred--on the left! The Democratic
> >> > Party has been hijacked by 1960s retreads like Howard Dean;
> >> > billionaire eccentrics like George Soros; and leftwing computer geeks
> >> > like Moveon.org. It nominated John Kerry, a notorious Vietnam-era
> >> > antiwar activist, as its presidential standard-bearer. Its major
> >> > spokesmen are old extremists like Ted Kennedy and new propagandists
> >> > like Michael Moore. Its great presidential hope is one of the most
> >> > divisive figures in U.S. politics, Hillary Clinton.
> >>
> >> Well I can't argue with that.
> >>
> >> And its favorite
> >> > son is an impeached, disbarred, held-in-contempt ex-president, Bill
> >> > Clinton.
> >>
> >> Rush, now your making things up. Too bad most stupid
> >> conservatives will believe your nonsense.
> >>
> >> > The Democratic Party today is split over the war and a host of
> >> > cultural issues, such as same-sex marriage and partial birth abortion.
> >> > It wants to raise taxes, but dares not say so. It can't decide what
> >> > message to convey to the American people or how to convey it. And even
> >> > its once- reliable allies in the big media aren't as influential in
> >> > promoting the party and its agenda as they were in the past. The new
> >> > media--talk radio, the Internet and cable TV--not only have a growing
> >> > following, but have helped expose the bias and falsehoods of the
> >> > big-media, e.g., Dan Rather, CBS News and the forged National Guard
> >> > documents. Hence, circulation and audience is down, and dropping.
> >>
> >> Well this is true. The democrats need to re-invent themselves.
> >> Nobody wants to vote for another NE liberal.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > The American left is stuck trying to repeat the history of its
> >> > presumed glory years. They hope people will see Iraq as Vietnam, the
> >> > entirety of the Bush administration as Watergate and Hurricane Katrina
> >> > as the Great Depression.
> >>
> >> Hurricane Katrina as the Great Depression? What the fuck is this idiot
> >> talking about?
> >>
> >> > Beyond looking to the past for their
> >> > salvation, the problem is that they continue to deceive even
> >> > themselves. None of their comparisons are true. Meanwhile, we
> >> > conservatives will continue to focus on making history.
> >>
> >> As making the biggest military blunder in US history.
> >> As having the most incompetent and corrupt administration ever?
> >> Making history not always a good thing.
> >>
> >> >[/color]
> >
> > And the biggest moron of all is tom.
> > --[/color]
>
> Ah dumbass Dale with nothing of value to add as usual.[/color]

what have you added tom?
--