On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:14:31 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


Bush wanted someone he understood. A yes man.

How do you know this? Tea leaves?

Roberts appears NOT to be, at
least based on what all the pundits are saying. Bush may think he wanted a
conservative, but you know as well as I do that he couldn't recognize one if
the person hit him upside the head with a salami.

Source?

Tell the truth... all of this is just your opinion. You're not
psychic, just misled and opinionated. That, and $2.25 will get you a
cup of coffee at Starbucks.

My opinion... you're a mental midget compared to President Bush. He's
the leader of the greatest country on earth for a second term, while
you're an embarrassment to yourself on a boating newsgroup.

"Jack Goff" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:14:31 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


Bush wanted someone he understood. A yes man.

How do you know this? Tea leaves?

Roberts appears NOT to be, at
least based on what all the pundits are saying. Bush may think he wanted a
conservative, but you know as well as I do that he couldn't recognize one
if
the person hit him upside the head with a salami.

Source?

Tell the truth... all of this is just your opinion. You're not
psychic, just misled and opinionated. That, and $2.25 will get you a
cup of coffee at Starbucks.

My opinion... you're a mental midget compared to President Bush. He's
the leader of the greatest country on earth for a second term, while
you're an embarrassment to yourself on a boating newsgroup.


I'll start tossing "sources" at you over the coming week, as I have time to
look at them. For now, the short version will do: A number of actual
conservatives have pointed out (in editorials, and on the floor of Congress)
that your puppy is not someone they would admit to being acquainted with, if
didn't have to work with him as part of their jobs.

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 13:20:31 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Jack Goff" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:14:31 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


Bush wanted someone he understood. A yes man.

How do you know this? Tea leaves?

Roberts appears NOT to be, at
least based on what all the pundits are saying. Bush may think he wanted a
conservative, but you know as well as I do that he couldn't recognize one
if
the person hit him upside the head with a salami.

Source?

Tell the truth... all of this is just your opinion. You're not
psychic, just misled and opinionated. That, and $2.25 will get you a
cup of coffee at Starbucks.

My opinion... you're a mental midget compared to President Bush. He's
the leader of the greatest country on earth for a second term, while
you're an embarrassment to yourself on a boating newsgroup.


I'll start tossing "sources" at you over the coming week, as I have time to
look at them. For now, the short version will do: A number of actual
conservatives have pointed out (in editorials, and on the floor of Congress)
that your puppy is not someone they would admit to being acquainted with, if
didn't have to work with him as part of their jobs.


Huh? Your "short version" has nothing to do with your previous
statements. Nothing in there points to how you came to know that
"Bush wants a yes man", or that he can't recognize a conservative.
Nothing.

It may give you a headache, but try to stay focused, OK?

BTW... the job of POTUS shouldn't be a popularity constest. If you
actually do something, and make your beleifs known, there will be some
people, even in your own party, that won't agree with you. Unless
you're a liberal, then the party is full of sheeple that can't think
for themselves, eh? Tow the party line, komrade.

"Jack Goff" wrote in message
news
I'll start tossing "sources" at you over the coming week, as I have time
to
look at them. For now, the short version will do: A number of actual
conservatives have pointed out (in editorials, and on the floor of
Congress)
that your puppy is not someone they would admit to being acquainted with,
if
didn't have to work with him as part of their jobs.


Huh? Your "short version" has nothing to do with your previous
statements. Nothing in there points to how you came to know that
"Bush wants a yes man", or that he can't recognize a conservative.
Nothing.

Your puppy is running out of groups to appeal to for votes. The one gang he
can still depend on is BTCs - Big Time Christians, who are obsessed with
just one issue to the exclusion of all others: Abortion. Therefore, when he
chooses judges (and more importantly, when he brags about his choices), he
MUST focus on people he can point to and make simple claims for. Naturally,
since no sane judge really wants to be associated with Bush, except for long
enough to get the job, only the worst candidates will make public and
simplistic statements about abortion. The qualified individuals know it's
not a simple issue.

So, your boy needs a yes man. Someone of low enough quality to appeal to the
BTCs.

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 16:33:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Jack Goff" wrote:

Huh? Your "short version" has nothing to do with your previous
statements. Nothing in there points to how you came to know that
"Bush wants a yes man", or that he can't recognize a conservative.
Nothing.

Your puppy is running out of groups to appeal to for votes. The one gang he
can still depend on is BTCs - Big Time Christians, who are obsessed with
just one issue to the exclusion of all others: Abortion. Therefore, when he
chooses judges (and more importantly, when he brags about his choices), he
MUST focus on people he can point to and make simple claims for. Naturally,
since no sane judge really wants to be associated with Bush, except for long
enough to get the job, only the worst candidates will make public and
simplistic statements about abortion. The qualified individuals know it's
not a simple issue.

So, your boy needs a yes man. Someone of low enough quality to appeal to the
BTCs.


You worked yourself into quite a lather spinning that one up.
Unfortunately, it doesn't make much sense.

President Bush picked a high quality judge for his Supreme Court
nominee. One that is so non-political, he is anything but a "yes
man". He is fairly conservative, but, once again, so non-political
that he has the support of many democrats, both in the past and
present. He's a very smart pick, as he has nothing for the looney
liberal left to get traction on, but he's still conservative.

You liberals have been out-foxed by President Bush again.

BTW... you liberals claim all the time that Bush is just a puppet, and
is actually controlled by people in the background. Now you're giving
him full credit for picking a "yes man", and not being able to discern
a conservative when he appoints one. So which is it, Doug? Is
President Bush running the show, or not? You can't have it both
ways... you're obviously lying when you take one of those positions,
unless you actually can't make up your mind. Which is it in your
opinion... did our President make the choice himself, good or bad, or
is he just a mouthpiece? Careful... you'll be graded, and judged, on
your choice later.

And through it all, you've still failed to show how your opinions are
anything but that... opinions.

"Jack Goff" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 16:33:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Jack Goff" wrote:

Huh? Your "short version" has nothing to do with your previous
statements. Nothing in there points to how you came to know that
"Bush wants a yes man", or that he can't recognize a conservative.
Nothing.

Your puppy is running out of groups to appeal to for votes. The one gang
he
can still depend on is BTCs - Big Time Christians, who are obsessed with
just one issue to the exclusion of all others: Abortion. Therefore, when
he
chooses judges (and more importantly, when he brags about his choices), he
MUST focus on people he can point to and make simple claims for.
Naturally,
since no sane judge really wants to be associated with Bush, except for
long
enough to get the job, only the worst candidates will make public and
simplistic statements about abortion. The qualified individuals know it's
not a simple issue.

So, your boy needs a yes man. Someone of low enough quality to appeal to
the
BTCs.


You worked yourself into quite a lather spinning that one up.
Unfortunately, it doesn't make much sense.

President Bush picked a high quality judge for his Supreme Court
nominee. One that is so non-political, he is anything but a "yes
man". He is fairly conservative, but, once again, so non-political
that he has the support of many democrats, both in the past and
present. He's a very smart pick, as he has nothing for the looney
liberal left to get traction on, but he's still conservative.

You liberals have been out-foxed by President Bush again.

BTW... you liberals claim all the time that Bush is just a puppet, and
is actually controlled by people in the background. Now you're giving
him full credit for picking a "yes man", and not being able to discern
a conservative when he appoints one. So which is it, Doug? Is
President Bush running the show, or not? You can't have it both
ways... you're obviously lying when you take one of those positions,
unless you actually can't make up your mind. Which is it in your
opinion... did our President make the choice himself, good or bad, or
is he just a mouthpiece? Careful... you'll be graded, and judged, on
your choice later.

And through it all, you've still failed to show how your opinions are
anything but that... opinions.


As I've explained to you in the past, there is no possibility that your
puppy is not damaged in some way. I know it would disturb your day to day
trance to admit it, but at some point in the future, you will. You probably
want a fancy clinical name for his condition, but I can't help you with
that. It's enough to say that if you were interviewing for a job that
required any sort of intelligence and someone like him came along, you'd
move his job application to the bottom of the pile. You know that.

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 22:05:32 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Jack Goff" wrote:

And through it all, you've still failed to show how your opinions are
anything but that... opinions.


As I've explained to you in the past, there is no possibility that your
puppy is not damaged in some way. I know it would disturb your day to day
trance to admit it, but at some point in the future, you will. You probably
want a fancy clinical name for his condition, but I can't help you with
that. It's enough to say that if you were interviewing for a job that
required any sort of intelligence and someone like him came along, you'd
move his job application to the bottom of the pile. You know that.


And you still fail to prove, in any way, shape or form, your strange
claims. You believe that your supposedly intellectualy superior
liberals somehow are better, but they keep being topped by President
Bush and company, who you think are somehow inferior to your bunch.

Maybe you need to hang out with a better crowd, huh?

I have hired a guy that is not well spoken, but is *very* intelligent,
and is one of our top performers. We have another that is not
visually pleasing, but is very effective at his job. You should be
more accepting of people. Being so superficially judgemental of
people is very small of you.

But as far as being a liberal, I guess I can understand your wanting
to root for the underdog. However, you seem damaged in your own way.
Have fun, Douglas.