Comment by Samuel Alito #7

Sam,

It’s great to read your victory speeches and know that your spirits are puffed up like a hot air ballon. You may be right, this American ‘mainstream’ you speak of is totally dependent upon two factors:

1) The combination of older, racist, right wing so-called conservatives and their younger WASP male counterparts.

2) the racist white females, and self-loathing, Al-cracka wannabe minorities of the Clarence Thomas, Elaine Chao, and Mel Martinez molds…

But know this Sammy boy, your “majority” here inside America is slowly being eroded away (and this is exactly what you fear, becoming a minority), and it’s going to happen. The Mexicans and other hispanics from the south are reclaiming parts of the southwest as we type…

Outside the country in places like South America and Canada your “majority” is becoming more and more despised and isolated with each passing year. The Chinese are making huge economic inroads and coalitions down south in Venezuela and Bolivia. The Europeans are strengthening their ties with each other and the Chinese, Iranians (don’t let that nuclear sh*t fool ya), and Russians…

The world is now engaged in a process whereby they are attempting to form economic alliances and leave your sick, twisted “majority” out in the cold…

Here at home, your “slave masters” (the corporate elite) are selling your country right out from under you. They realize that you have nothing to offer in terms of natural resources, see an opportunity to bring your life styles down to the level of third world workers (and increase their profits “in case of emergency escape”) by exporting manufacturing jobs to those third world countries and maintaining a seriously flawed trade imbalance. He*l boy do you really think a Chinese worker earning $3 an hour can afford to buy vehicles (or any other high priced goods) manufactured in the US and shipped there, while you’re still buying their goods at Walmart?

You’re happy that you’re going have control of the SC that’s great, but it’s all going to disintegrate right before your beady little eyes. You aren’t going to UNITE the country against all enemies foreign and domestic by FORCING your ‘conservative’ morals and ideals down our collective throats, or bringing back a milder form of de jure segregation/Jim Crow America…

No sir, you’re going to DESTROY this once possibly (remember this democratic republic is a shortlived experiment in terms of geologic time, and historical context) great nation…

Sooner or later your karma is going to catch up with you sammy boy, and when it does I hope we’re still in touch!

There are still 10 months left before congressional elections in which the president’s Republican Party could lose its dominance of Capitol Hill; a recent Associated Press-Ipsos poll found Americans prefer Democratic control over a continued GOP majority by 49 percent to 36 percent. But Bush is wasting no time engaging the battle. In his first speech of 2006 on the road, last week in Chicago, he aggressively challenged Democrats on the economy.

Tuesday’s equally sharp message represented an attempt by the president to neutralize Democrats’ ability to use Iraq – where violence is surging in the wake of December parliamentary elections and messy negotiations to form a new coalition government – as an election-year cudgel against Republicans.

Bush acknowledged deep differences over Iraq among casualty-weary Americans, just 39 percent of whom approve of his handling of the war, according to AP-Ipsos. Without specifically mentioning Democrats, the president urged campaigning politicians to “conduct this debate responsibly.”

He said he welcomed “honest critics” who question the way the war is being conducted and the “loyal opposition” that points out what is wrong with his administration’s approach.

But he termed irresponsible the “partisan critics who claim that we acted in Iraq because of oil or because of Israel or because we misled the American people,” as well as “defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right.” With that description, Bush lumped the many Democrats who have accused him of twisting prewar intelligence with the few people, mostly outside the mainstream, who have raised the issues of oil and Israel.

Bush argued that irresponsible discussion harms the morale of troops overseas, emboldens the insurgents they are fighting and sets a bad example for Iraqis trying to establish a democratic government.

“In a free society, there’s only one check on political speech and that’s the judgment of the American people,” the president said to sustained applause from a friendly audience, a gathering of Veterans of Foreign Wars. “So I ask all Americans to hold their elected leaders to account and demand a debate that brings credit to our democracy, not comfort to our adversaries.”

White House press secretary Scott McClellan would not say who Bush believes has been irresponsible, other than Democratic Party chief Howard Dean, who said last month that “the idea that we’re going to win this war … is just plain wrong.” In the past, the White House has also singled out, among others, Rep. John Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who became a leading advocate for a quick troop pullout, and other Democrats who say Bush has no strategy.

Democrats said Bush has no business trying to define what sort of talk is acceptable.

“Patriotic Americans will continue to ask the tough questions because our brave men and women in Iraq, their families and the American people deserve to know that their leaders are being held accountable,” said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said loyalty demands that Democrats differ with Bush on the lack of sufficient body armor for troops and other issues. “From its inception and continuing to this moment, the absence of open and honest debate has been one of the hallmarks of this war,” the California Democrat said.

And Democratic National Committee communications director Karen Finney said: “The Bush administration’s attack, distract and distort tactics reflect a Nixonian paranoia that is un-American. It’s shameful that once again the Bush administration resorted to attacking the patriotism of fellow Americans rather than answering legitimate questions surrounding the president’s failures in Iraq.”

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., who met with Bush recently at the White House, praised the president’s recent efforts to gather differing viewpoints and welcomed the call for a more civil dialogue. But Schiff said the process must begin at the White House, which he said “brought the debate down a significant notch” when it attacked Murtha, a respected veteran and longtime hawk.

“Some of the worst culprits in worsening the dialogue on Iraq have come from the White House,” said Schiff, who attended Bush’s speech. “It’s got to be a two-way street.”

It was the latest in a series of speeches by Bush aimed at giving Americans more detail and more candor. He predicted more sacrifice and more progress in 2006 in Iraq.

The still-unannounced results of Iraq’s Dec. 15 elections are expected to show the religious Shiite United Iraqi Alliance with a strong lead. The Shiites will, however, will need to form a coalition government with support from Kurdish and Sunni Arab political groups.

Bush said Iraqis must put aside political, religious and sectarian differences to be successful.

Sunnis, he said, “need to learn how to use their influence constructively in a democratic system,” while Shiites and Kurds must “protect the rights of minorities against the tyranny of the majority.”

—

On the Net:

White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov

Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

“I remember just waiting to “get Clinton” like you guys want to get Bush, but in the end it didn’t get me anything.”

Because there wasn’t anything to “get” Clinton on.

“It wasn’t until I had a positive agenda focused on America and not Billary, that I started winning elections.”

A little help from Diebold goes a long way.

http://congress.org/congressorg/home

I believe, Sir, that you misread my comment. My objection was not to the fact that a Supreme Court Ruling could or should not be reversed. (As an aside it is interesting to note that you found only two cases in over 200 years.) My point is that no contender to a Supreme Court seat should make up his or her mind about a particular ruling before being confirmed and without due consideration of the facts. Case in point: Alito has publicly stated that IN HIS OPINION Roe vs Wade should be overturned. He is entitled to that opinion as long as he is not seated on the Supreme Court. If he is seated, that opinion becomes a conflict of interest and he must recuse himself from voting on any similiar case. If he is confident with his decision his place is not on the court but in the House or Senate working on an amendment to the Constitution that would onerturn Roe vs. Wade. The fact is that the government CANNOT legislate morality. It was tried with Prohibition the correct way, amending the constitution, and it didn’t work. Alito may use his childhood and/or religious background to attempt to rewrite the Constitution from the Bench but it will not work.

I will submit that rather than negating my point with your minimal examples you actually have added to the proof. thank you!

Comment by Samuel Alito — January 10, 2006 @ 5:18 pm

Yeah you and Rush Limburger would know all about medication.

I see you attacking people here, but you have yet to address the questions raised by the article. But I understand, that would take thought, which is hard to come by when taking oxys, isn’t it?