NEW SUPREME COURT JUSTICE

[jsniderfamily]

Any opinions on the new candidate announced last night?

[Divia]

Yay another man.......woohoo..........blah.........

I thought it would be cool to shake things up a little. Maybe put another woman on. Or even a black woman.

Just as long as state/church is seperate and he doesnt turn Roe V wade I dont care.  Thats all I need to do is break out the coathangers.  :-/

[jsniderfamily]

I had a thought.
What if Billy was a Supreme Court Justice?  or Amanda Conner?  or J.M.Linsner?  Let's have some comic relief on that all-too-serious panel.

[BillyTucci]

I had a thought.
What if Billy was a Supreme Court Justice?  or Amanda Conner?  or J.M.Linsner?  Let's have some comic relief on that all-too-serious panel.

If Tucci were a Supreme Court Justice?  HMMMM...

The People of the United States vs. Joseph Snider of Louisville, KY.  The verdict...

GUILTY!

GUILTY, I SAY...

(gavel smashing upon the court)

GUILTYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jsniderfamily]

Damn.  Guilty as charged.  Of what I have no idea.

[Delvie]

Any opinions on the new candidate announced last night?

He SUCKS & I'm not surprised @ all

Just as long as state/church is seperate and he doesnt turn Roe V wade I dont care.  Thats all I need to do is break out the coathangers.  :-/

Ummm... I'm sorry. Who's our president? Ummm... what was his agenda, again?

[pctchuck]

His agenda was to get big oil as much money as they can siphon out of the pockets of Joe Average American.  If the price of gas goes up much more, I won't be able to afford gasoline for my minivan to even drive to work.

[jsniderfamily]

IRVING, Texas (AP) — ExxonMobil (XOM), the world's largest publicly traded oil company, said Thursday its profits surged 32% in the second quarter as it reaped the benefits of soaring oil and natural gas prices.

[flerk]

IRVING, Texas (AP) — ExxonMobil (XOM), the world's largest publicly traded oil company, said Thursday its profits surged 32% in the second quarter as it reaped the benefits of soaring oil and natural gas prices.

And thanks to the new energy bill, they won't have to pay taxes on all that profit.

Aint it grand.

[JCVaughn]

I think the NY Times investigation of the adoption of Judge Roberts' children is beyond reprehensible, and yet I am thankful for yet another nail in the coffin of the so-called mainstream media.

I am thankful that even some liberals are denouncing it, though I admit I'm disappointed that others think it's fair game.

Anyone who thinks he knows what kind of Justice that Roberts would be is way more psychic than me (or, alternately, is getting better information from the aliens through their tin foil). David Souter was supposedly a conservative when he was appointed. Think he's a conservative? Earl Warren, perhaps the biggest idiot to ever be Chief Justice, was supposedly conservative, too. How'd that work out?

For Pete's sake, the Republicans basically shut up for Justice Ginsburg. The Democrats should do likewise now.

[Delvie]

I think the NY Times investigation of the adoption of Judge Roberts' children is beyond reprehensible, and yet I am thankful for yet another nail in the coffin of the so-called mainstream media.

I am thankful that even some liberals are denouncing it, though I admit I'm disappointed that others think it's fair game.

Anyone who thinks he knows what kind of Justice that Roberts would be is way more psychic than me (or, alternately, is getting better information from the aliens through their tin foil). David Souter was supposedly a conservative when he was appointed. Think he's a conservative? Earl Warren, perhaps the biggest idiot to ever be Chief Justice, was supposedly conservative, too. How'd that work out?

I always find it amusing how quickly the right forget that the same media that so many accuse of being liberal also wouldn't let the Clinton affair & the Carter goofs go unreported.  (& vice versa)
I didn't read the NYTimes blurb on his children, so I can't make any statements on it that would be accurate. What I CAN state w/ all confidence, however, is that for anybody BUT a conservative, Roberts sucks. Not just liberals hate him, but moderates like myself who vote issues & not party, hate him as well. He has a long history of making choices that immediately wreck the environment in favor of coal companies. He opposed clean air rules and worked to help coal companies strip-mine mountaintops. He worked with Ken Starr, and tried to keep Congress from defending the Voting Rights Act. He wrote that Roe v. Wade should be overruled, and as a lawyer argued (and won) the case that stopped some doctors from even discussing abortion.

Yes, as you've stated, some people open up their minds once they are appointed & vote their conscience & not their party, but when someone is making decisions that will affect my life, it would be stupid of me not to consider their opinions & actions that got them to this point. No, I can't read minds, but it is a safe bet that a peson who makes a career of being a staunch conservative or a staunch liberal is going to start off making BAD decisions.

Besides, it's not that Roberts is a Conservative being appointed. It's that a moderate judge is potentially going to be replaced w/ a conservative, only to be likely followed by another conservative appointment; because nobody w/ a head based in reality believes the president will present an unbiased court system to America.

For Pete's sake, the Republicans basically shut up for Justice Ginsburg. The Democrats should do likewise now.

LOL. I noticed you added "basically" to cover yourself. Otherwise, I would have responded: "When have the liberals or conservatives shut up about anything?"

Even so, it's a democratic republic. Being silent about things you disagree w/ is un-American.

[JCVaughn]

I always find it amusing how quickly the right forget that the same media that so many accuse of being liberal also wouldn't let the Clinton affair & the Carter goofs go unreported.  (& vice versa)  

Are you seriously suggesting that the so-called mainstream media isn't liberal?

[Delvie]

I'm saying they rise to meet the occasion. Right now? Of course they are. The republicans are in power & going after them is a better story. When Clinton was President & the dems enjoyed power, the media was pointedly conservative & couldn't get enough of liberal faux pas. Americans generally like to see the underdog rise & the big guy fall. This is why celebrity crimes get much more attention than the millions of other crimes in America which are relatively insignificant to major media. While the conservatives enjoy the power, it is inevitable that they will receive the lions share of the critical attention. When the power flips, so too, shall the focus flip.

[JCVaughn]

I'm saying they rise to meet the occasion. Right now? Of course they are. The republicans are in power & going after them is a better story. When Clinton was President & the dems enjoyed power, the media was pointedly conservative & couldn't get enough of liberal faux pas. Americans generally like to see the underdog rise & the big guy fall. This is why celebrity crimes get much more attention than the millions of other crimes in America which are relatively insignificant to major media. While the conservatives enjoy the power, it is inevitable that they will receive the lions share of the critical attention. When the power flips, so too, shall the focus flip.

They media was never pointedly conservative when they were going after Clinton. They're sharks. Sharks can't help themselves when there is blood in the water. They resort to killer instinct.

The major difference, particularly since in excess of 70% of journalists identify themselves as liberal, is that the news is against Republicans ideologically. Not so with Democrats.

[Delvie]

Alrighty, then. Well, we can discuss journalists or we can discuss mainstream media, which are seperate entities. Mainstream media generally employs both conservative as well as liberal. Not necessarily to have a more balanced reporting structure, but to get @ the news from different angles.  

I disagree that reporting wasn't conservative during Dem majority years. Most of America still believes that Clinton's crime was his extramarital affairs. WHY? While it may be distasteful to you & I, adultery is NOT against the law. It is against the 10 commandments. Clinton's crime was his perjury & denial under oath, but the "mainstream media" was so fixated on biblical values, that the only message that Americans got was "he cheated, shame on him." In any case, the affair was not the only thing that Clinton had to answer for. Throughout his presidency, just like Bush's, Bush Sr, Reagan, etc he was constantly facing media that seemingly supported the opposition.

I also disagree that media isn't stacked against against liberals as well. Otherwise, you would never see facts about liberals getting in trouble, as well.



All sorts of cases can be made about journalists & their motives, but that wasn't originally the issue. There are biased journalists that only report the facts. There are biased journalists that report their opinions. There are journalists that do the right things, the wrong things, & sometimes even the right things for the wrong reasons. For instance, during the last election, a journalist in an attempt to spear Bush & the war, aired the names & faces of all the deceased American soldiers killed in combat in Iraq. While I hate his motives for doing such, I applaud the attempt to give Americas heroes national (international?) recognition. Frankly, the gov't should have done it first. Giving the family a star & a flag & some pay should be accompanied by internationally aired memorials. We should do the same for vetarans & KIA for all military actions we've been involved in. Viet Nam, Korea, WWII, etc. I reiterate, I hate the motives behind the airing of recognition, but the act itself was much deserved.


Yes, we are in agreement that the media is currently liberal. We disagree that it wavers given the circumstances. We also disagree that it was conservative during Democratic presidency years. Journalists weren't part of your question, but they come in all kinds. Conservatives might agree w/ you on all points. Liberals would probably disagree w/ both of us on most points. Perhaps moderates, would agree, perhaps not.

But yah, Roberts was a bad decision in my view. Both for American Supreme Judicial process to attempt to have a balanced court & for a president who wants Americans to believe that he ever intended or ever will intend to reach across to Americans who disagree w/ him like he says he wants to. Non conservative Americans hoped for a moderate (not a liberal) voice to replace moderate conservative O'Connor because it is doubtful that the staunch conservative Rehnquist will be replaced by anything but a staunch conservative.  

Personally, I have no problem w/ moderate conservatives or moderate liberals, it's the far left & far right (IMO) that promote ideologies into idiocies.

[JCVaughn]

Mainstream media generally employs both conservative as well as liberal.

Since when? They throw in the token conservative commentator -- usually someone as far right as possible to look as kooky as possible --  but the reporters are consistantly and overwhelmingly liberal by their own definitions. It has only worsened in the last twenty years.

I disagree that reporting wasn't conservative during Dem majority years.

You should read Bernard Goldberg's books. He's a lifelong liberal and he sees it. He also identifies it very clearly.

I'm not really interested in whether people agree or not with a position that is demonstrably true. Seriously, we worship at the alter of "everyone's entitled to their opinion" (which they are) without remembering that all opinions are not inherently valid. For instance, if I say I can fly under my own power, that's not -- under most circumstances -- as valid as you saying I cannot.

When 70% of reporters say they're liberal, and when they consistantly fail even the basic standards of fair reporting that I learned in freakin' junior college 157 years ago...

Any doubt that Fox News leans conservative? Their audience tests 49% liberal. Why would they watch it? Because liberals, just like most people, want to have some balance. The mainstream media has no concept of this. They just don't get it.

[Delvie]

Since when?

I don't know. Since, like, as long as I've been alive?  Evidence to the contrary is trumped by the fact that there is plenty of less than flattering news about liberal politicians & self appointed spokesmen, as well.


Nope, I haven't read Bernard's book on media bias. I have, however, listened to his audio book "100 People Who Are Screwing Up America"  Very few policy makers are named & even they are virtually powerless, being out of office. It's mostly all celebrity figures or people no longer involved in politics. If his recent book is any indication of a progression of his talents, he is out of touch w/ reality.. Anna Nicole Smith? OY

Demonstrably true is that when it suits the media, they are anti conservative & when it suits them, they are anti liberal. Either that or they are just unbiased sharks ALL the time. Besides, agreement or not, it's still amusing

how quickly the right forget that the same media that so many accuse of being liberal also wouldn't let the Clinton affair & the Carter goofs go unreported.  (& vice versa)"

Equating 70% of reporters being liberal to 70% being dishonest in their reporting is like equating 30% of conservative reporters as being honest or dishonest in their reporting. Hell of a leap.

Did you just put a complaint about consistantly failing even the basic standards of fair reporting in the same post supporting Fox News? WOW. Some of the most popular journalists that lean one way or the other are Hannity, O'Reilly, Scarborough, Limbaugh, Savage, Dr. Dobson, Snow, etc are so conservative that the "liberal media anchors pale in comparison. Many of them are considered Fox's finest. Hannity & Colmes is supposed to be a fair & balanced news discussion. Colmes supposedly represents the left, but he claims to be a moderate like myself, NOT a liberal. Anyway, not all of us who watch Fox news or listen to Rush or Focus on Family or watch crossfire watch for balance. We watch to see just how much something can be spun. Hannity has always amused me just as much as James Caravel has. I've always been a Dennis Miller fan. I think he's lost his mind most of the time, but I will always watch until he stops being funny.

Be it as it may, bad reporting or good. Roberts only benefits staunch conservatives. If you are liberal or in the middle, enjoy.[/color]

[JCVaughn]

Some of the most popular journalists that lean one way or the other are Hannity, O'Reilly, Scarborough, Limbaugh, Savage, Dr. Dobson, Snow, etc are so conservative that the "liberal media anchors pale in comparison.

You don't seem to separate between commentators and journalists. There is a major distinction -- and on Fox in particular the commentary shows are freqently interupted by news breaks delivered by reporters.

It would startle me if you didn't actually see the distinction, so I won't presume you don't -- but the failure of the so-called mainstream media  to understand this is exactly what has fueled the rise of Fox, talk radio and internet news. Their growth is a market response to a distinct failure.

[JCVaughn]

Oh, and just for point of Clarity, Allan Comes has frequently identified himself as liberal.

[Delvie]

I apologize. I would have never claimed Fox News as mainstream media, just Like I would never claim moveon.org as such. When you made the jump to Fox News being fair & balanced, yes, I mistakenly assumed you were making the jump to the commentators being "journalists" as well. My bad.



"I think I'm quite moderate," Colmes blandly told USA Today, not long before being hired as the show's left-wing counterweight to Hannity. He was hired to do a job. To be a liberal voice. Most of his fans are from the opposite end of the spectrum. Just about any google search will give you tons of news articles questioning Colmes role & stances as a "Liberal" on H&C.

[Delvie]

Any opinions on the new candidate announced last night?

Roberts? Not just liberals hate him, but moderates like myself who vote issues & not party, hate him as well. He has a long history of making choices that immediately wreck the environment in favor of coal companies. He opposed clean air rules and worked to help coal companies strip-mine mountaintops. He worked with Ken Starr, and tried to keep Congress from defending the Voting Rights Act. He wrote that Roe v. Wade should be overruled, and as a lawyer argued (and won) the case that stopped some doctors from even discussing abortion.

Roberts was a bad decision in my view. Both for American Supreme Judicial process to attempt to have a balanced court & for a president who wants Americans to believe that he ever intended or ever will intend to reach across to Americans who disagree w/ him like he says he wants to. Non conservative Americans hoped for a moderate (not a liberal) voice to replace moderate conservative O'Connor because it is doubtful that the staunch conservative Rehnquist will be replaced by anything but a staunch conservative.

[flerk]

It seems to me that that this whole hub-bub is about abortion and religion.

That stinks.

If we are going to make abortion illeagal on the grounds of life, then we should make MALE MASTURBATION, CONDOMS AND CONTRACEPTION against the law because if you look at sperm under a microscope they are very much ALIVE. And releasing them into the void by masturbating or using contraception is dooming them to iminent death. They can be seen wriggling around, desperately trying to survive; to procreate,  to reproduce, to have a chance!

Hell, we should make menstrating illeagal. Those little eggs should have a chance. We should impregnate every woman, every cycle from as early as they start dropping those suckers. Those little eggs should have a chance.

And when they are born, well, who the hell cares. It's a free country and if the silly twats can't make over 300 thousand a year, then God must hate them.

Love the fetus, hate the child.

[flerk]

By the way,

I am a LIBERAL, and I do watch Fox news, and have a subscription to the WEEKLY STANDARD, and the WALL STREET JOURNAL, I look at these mediums not necessarily for balance, but for information, to see what the other side is thinking and how they are framing their arguments.

I worked on a play last year called EMBEDDED, which was written and directed by uber-leftie Tim Robbins. When we opened the show, ( just a few months after the war started and  very soon after "Mission Accomplished") the director was vilified for being out of touch and essentially having bad information.

Well, six months and a year later, it appears that his information was right. Where did he get his information? Not from the "Liberal Mainstream Media", but from the underground 'leftie' media that is generally villified as being outrageus.

So, my point is, that "Mainstream Media" is not as "liberal" as Fox and all their cronies make it out to be. Fox itself is mainly a gaggle of talking head opinionators, being told what to say by the mangement writing the checks.

When we did the show in Los Angeles, before we went to NYC and London and around the nation and had only shown the piece to 2,000 people, Fox News sent a guy named Lajaneuse? to review our show for national TV.
I talked to the guy, he told me that; quote, "I know where my bread is buttered and I know who my audience is." Is it any wonder that he made the play and Tim Robbins look like a bunch of military hating commies?
And you know what, all the things that LAJENEUSE? derided in his piece as being false, have come out as fact. It seems that the "mainstream media" is run by CORPORATIONS, and CORPORATIONS are NOT LIBERAL. They are, for the most part CONSERVATIVE and know "where their bread is buttered".

While in London, I and the cast became members of a War Correspondents Club called, THE FRONTLINE CLUB. I had the great pleasure of meeting and speaking at great length with the owner and many members of the club.
The thing that I came away with was that we aren't getting the whole truth from the media, we are getting the watered down truth because the real truth is nauseating and unpalatable. We don't want to watch nnews stories of what is really happpening in the world because we will all go mad, and the American News Media needs to sell air time.
Also, they told me about their colleagues in the White House Press Corp.,  have to write out all their questions to McClellan? or Bush in ADVANCE, and if they stray from that question, or ask something pointed and possibly embarrassing, that reporter will not be asked to question them again. What happens to the reporter? They don't get the inside stories to their editors and get DEMOTED. Their bread doesn't get buttered.
So what is hhappening now? Why is this good for this crooked administration? The MEDIA is now villified. The MESSENGER is killed so that the administration can get the info they want out, without it being cross checked with the damn truth.

I am so mad I am pissing blood.

[Delvie]

Grounds of life isn't really the issue. 1/2 the people who are against abortion are for capital punishment & erroneous military actions. They just like to say "grounds of life" to make themselves feel better. Personally, I'm for capital punishment & believe that it should be extended to some sexual crimes. I don't know if I would ever recommend abortion, but I certainly don't believe choice should be taken away from the woman. Some people argue that abortion is being used as birth control. Awful expensive BC in my opinion, but I do know that some people are pretty careless w/ protection & should be held accountable for their carelessness.
It's funny that you suggest "make menstrating illegal." The same chapter of the bible that is continually quoted as defense for anti-gay bigotry also says "any man who lay in a bed that a woman has menstrated in, both he & she shall be stoned to death."

[jsniderfamily]

I am so mad I am pissing blood.

Could be a urinary track infection.   See a conservative doctor.