Theresa probably wouldn’t loan him the cash to hire a lawyer!
Proof - 12:05pm on 05/10/2008
Bat,
I was in the Marine Corps in infantry training at San Onofre, California when Kerry gave his famous (infamous) testimony before the Senate in which he disparaged our troops to the point of treason.
I didn’t see it (television was but a fond memory in infantry training) but the reason I remember it was because when I called home that weekend my uncle, a two tour Marine combat veteran, was in a rage about it.
He called Kerry everything but a human being and questioned then how Kerry would know so much about how our troops were fighting in the jungles from the deck of a boat.
That’s not to disparage what the Swift Boat guys did. Getting shot at is getting shot at. But Kerry made like he had knowledge of the entire theater of war that he could not possibly have had with the limited number of engagements he was involved in.
Phony. Period.
Pilgrim - 01:05pm on 05/10/2008
Part of why the Republicans aren’t in office, in my opinion, is that too many of you guys actively seek out confrontation instead of compromise. That’s not governance, that’s incompetence
One does not compromise principles. If you are willing to compromise everything you have no principles. If you have no principles you have no morals. Unprincipled and amoral - sort of descibes a liberal Democrat don’t it?
docdave - 01:05pm on 05/10/2008
dd: Agreed. The real problem of the Republican Party is shying away from confrontation in order to “get along” or be “bipartisan”. Had we confronted the lefties on SS, domestic oil development, larger tax rate cuts and the invasion of illegals, we would not be in the position we are in today as a Party.
As it is, the Republican Party is just “Dem Lite”, IMO.
We need contrast with their obvious leftism.
The American people need to be offered a real choice.
robert108 - 01:05pm on 05/10/2008
PParents:
Goon: You don’t understand it right. McCain and the 14 got Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito confirmed to the court over a dem majority.
PP: The Republicans were in the majority. They had the votes to pass these judges. The Dems were playing a new dirty trick pulling a filibuster to block judges. Nobody had done that under these circumstances before.
For that reason I disagree with Carrick that this was about compromise. This was surrender, enshrining the use of the filibuster to block judges.
I guess it’s a tool the Republican could use if Obama wins the White House, if the Democrats don’t pull their own nuclear option. Still since it had never been used to block anyone before so do we really need it?
(Note the only time the filibuster was used was to embarrass a corrupt Supreme Court justice who Johnson I believe had nominated to Chief Justice. He didn’t have the votes to win the nomination, so that isn’t the same thing.)
The Whistler - 03:05pm on 05/10/2008
Whistler:
They had the votes to pass these judges.
... not over a filibuster, which requires a 60 vote super-majority to envoke cloture.
That’s why Senator McCain knew that a filibuster had to be avoided.
pparets - 03:05pm on 05/10/2008
not over a filibuster, which requires a 60 vote super-majority to envoke cloture.
Prior to GW Bush Administration no judge had to get a super majority to get approved.
That’s why Senator McCain knew that a filibuster had to be avoided.
No what had to be done was to change the Senate rules back to the ones we had followed for 200 or so years. That could have been done with the simple majority.
The question is if McCain was unwilling to fight for qualified judges when the Republicans had a majority in the Senate what makes anyone think he’ll fight for qualified judges when they don’t?
The Whistler - 04:05pm on 05/10/2008
Whistler: The real question is, who do you want nominating justices? Obama, Clinton or McCain?
You can quibble that it will make no difference, but it will.
So, who?
pparets - 05:05pm on 05/10/2008
Todd,
On May 10th I wrote the following, addressed to another commenter named Bruce. He wisely chose not to respond.
If you prefer to take up the challenge yourself, I will gladly make the time to disabuse you of any silly, lingering suspicions that the Swift Boat Vets didn’t tell the truth (they did!), or that John Kerry is fit to be this nation’s Commander-in-Chief (He isn’t!).
If you’d like to discuss whose medals Kerry threw over the White House fence… and why; the reason that there are still 114 pages of Kerry’s military records, including his original discharge from the Navy, which are unaccounted for and withheld from public review, the odd fact that all of the citations for Kerry’s military awards, including his Silver Star and Purple Hearts, bear dates and signatures from after his (original) discharge, Where Kerry really was the day the PCF-94 boat was attacked and David Alston was wounded in the head, and who was really in command of that boat… an action for which Kerry “unconscionably” took credit; Kerry’s “skimmer scam”, his trip to Cambodia, or his “magic hat” let me know.
When we’re done with those topics, we can examine the November 1971 meeting of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War in Kansas City, the meeting Kerry denied he attended, until confronted by information in FBI surveillance files showing he had indeed been there. That was the meeting at which a plot to assassinate certain prominent US officials who supported the war effort was discussed. Those officials included Henry Kissinger, John Stennis, Richard Russell and others. Both US federal law and the UCMJ require that such discussions be reported to the proper authorities. Kerry did no such thing.
As is pointed out above, telling the truth is not a “smear”. John O’Neill even challenged Kerry to sue… to take him and the Swift Boat Vets to court and prove that their charges against Kerry were false. Fittingly, Kerry backed down and declined to sue.
Be advised, however, you had damn well better know what you’re talking about, and be able to back up what you say… which ain’t gonna be easy considering those (still) missing 114 pages of Kerry’s military record.
Bat One - 07:05am on 05/19/2008
Not sure what is so heroic and glorifying about John McCain?!!!
He, unwillingly since he was drafted anyways, went to a LOOSER war/invasion. There, he got his ass captured. Tortured or not, he was captured and jailed like a stupid chickem. That was 45 years ago.
Then he came back and married a Beer Wealthy girl, which her father used his money to put his son in law in the senate to take care of business!
Therefore, what experience and wualification is he talking about???
Theresa probably wouldn’t loan him the cash to hire a lawyer!
Bat,
I was in the Marine Corps in infantry training at San Onofre, California when Kerry gave his famous (infamous) testimony before the Senate in which he disparaged our troops to the point of treason.
I didn’t see it (television was but a fond memory in infantry training) but the reason I remember it was because when I called home that weekend my uncle, a two tour Marine combat veteran, was in a rage about it.
He called Kerry everything but a human being and questioned then how Kerry would know so much about how our troops were fighting in the jungles from the deck of a boat.
That’s not to disparage what the Swift Boat guys did. Getting shot at is getting shot at. But Kerry made like he had knowledge of the entire theater of war that he could not possibly have had with the limited number of engagements he was involved in.
Phony. Period.
One does not compromise principles. If you are willing to compromise everything you have no principles. If you have no principles you have no morals. Unprincipled and amoral - sort of descibes a liberal Democrat don’t it?
dd: Agreed. The real problem of the Republican Party is shying away from confrontation in order to “get along” or be “bipartisan”. Had we confronted the lefties on SS, domestic oil development, larger tax rate cuts and the invasion of illegals, we would not be in the position we are in today as a Party.
As it is, the Republican Party is just “Dem Lite”, IMO.
We need contrast with their obvious leftism.
The American people need to be offered a real choice.
PParents:
PP: The Republicans were in the majority. They had the votes to pass these judges. The Dems were playing a new dirty trick pulling a filibuster to block judges. Nobody had done that under these circumstances before.
For that reason I disagree with Carrick that this was about compromise. This was surrender, enshrining the use of the filibuster to block judges.
I guess it’s a tool the Republican could use if Obama wins the White House, if the Democrats don’t pull their own nuclear option. Still since it had never been used to block anyone before so do we really need it?
(Note the only time the filibuster was used was to embarrass a corrupt Supreme Court justice who Johnson I believe had nominated to Chief Justice. He didn’t have the votes to win the nomination, so that isn’t the same thing.)
Whistler:
... not over a filibuster, which requires a 60 vote super-majority to envoke cloture.
That’s why Senator McCain knew that a filibuster had to be avoided.
Prior to GW Bush Administration no judge had to get a super majority to get approved.
No what had to be done was to change the Senate rules back to the ones we had followed for 200 or so years. That could have been done with the simple majority.
The question is if McCain was unwilling to fight for qualified judges when the Republicans had a majority in the Senate what makes anyone think he’ll fight for qualified judges when they don’t?
Whistler: The real question is, who do you want nominating justices? Obama, Clinton or McCain?
You can quibble that it will make no difference, but it will.
So, who?
Todd,
On May 10th I wrote the following, addressed to another commenter named Bruce. He wisely chose not to respond.
If you prefer to take up the challenge yourself, I will gladly make the time to disabuse you of any silly, lingering suspicions that the Swift Boat Vets didn’t tell the truth (they did!), or that John Kerry is fit to be this nation’s Commander-in-Chief (He isn’t!).
Be advised, however, you had damn well better know what you’re talking about, and be able to back up what you say… which ain’t gonna be easy considering those (still) missing 114 pages of Kerry’s military record.
Not sure what is so heroic and glorifying about John McCain?!!!
He, unwillingly since he was drafted anyways, went to a LOOSER war/invasion. There, he got his ass captured. Tortured or not, he was captured and jailed like a stupid chickem. That was 45 years ago.
Then he came back and married a Beer Wealthy girl, which her father used his money to put his son in law in the senate to take care of business!
Therefore, what experience and wualification is he talking about???