- Joined
- Jul 5, 2005
- Messages
- 8,682
- Reaction score
- 262
- Location
- Philadelphia,PA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
cnredd said:Before the left declares victory...please keep this in mind...
One of the major impacts that influenced the withdraw was that the Conservative base believed that she wasn't Conservative ENOUGH...
If the left thought she was too Conservative...wait 'til you see the NEXT nominee...
That's why the leaders of the left didn't jump in hemming and hawing...They knew the right was going to do that...If she was confirmed, the left would've actually WON...
Remember...it has been reported that Harry Reid, Democratic Senate Minority leader endorsed her nomination...Bush tried to reach accross the aisle and went with Reid's endorsement...It was the Conservative base that stopped it, so ease up with the Bush rants...at least on THIS issue...:2wave:
Now we are PROBABLY going to see a true fight...Expect Bush to appease the Conservative base and choose a nominee more in tune with them...That will create voices of dismay from the left...
Keep in mind these points...they are still valid...
One does not have to BE a judge to be nominated...Many Supreme Court justices have been chosen without judicial experience and have turned out quite well...
Check and see what the National Bar Association has to say on the next nominee...
Check & see what the "Gang of 14" has to say...
kmhowe72 said:It sad day. Our nation is is choas. First with the war in Iraq, and then with Katrina, now with the thing with Carl Rove. And now they cannot get ajudge replaced. Harriet Miers is whimp. Sh couldn't take the pressure. And the white House didn't want to give up secrets. What next. It's choas. It was domed from the start.
TurtleDude said:a rather ignorant perception of attorney-client privilege
wimp? or a good lawyer doing what's best for her client
wimps don't end up being top partners in top lawfirms or WH counsel
shuamort said:
Or the grammatical error was put there intentionally and you didn't catch it because he didn't include a smiley or reference to sarcasm...TurtleDude said:cheap shot. I would suggest your grammar in the above sentence is hardly perfect. I don't think your academic or professional resume would rate very well compared to hers.
And maybe after that, they'll replace the Constitution with the Bible. Won't you be happy then?AlbqOwl said:What many of us wanted was for the President and GOP to start acting like winners instead of timid sheep, take the leadership role we expected, and start acting like CONSERVATIVES that were elected to represent us. We wanted a supreme court nominee with positive conservative credentials, with proven originalist judicial temperament, and one with stature that would make the liberal left wingnuts howl with terror. We wanted a knockdown drag out fight on the Senate floor and the nuclear option implemented if necessary. We wanted them to fight for us and our ideals and values and to show that they have some backbone and that they understand they are in the majority because we wanted them to represent us.
Maybe, just maybe, we can now have all that.
Binary_Digit said:And maybe after that, they'll replace the Constitution with the Bible. Won't you be happy then?
It was a joke. Of course, my grammar was perfect in that post.TurtleDude said:cheap shot. I would suggest your grammar in the above sentence is hardly perfect.
Yes, part and parcel of that would be that I'm not 60 years old either. Then again, I'm not being nominated for that position so my curriculum vitae isn't relevant in this ad hominem either.TurtleDude said:I don't think your academic or professional resume would rate very well compared to hers.
Binary_Digit said:And maybe after that, they'll replace the Constitution with the Bible. Won't you be happy then?
Sorry, you were talking about wanting them to have a knock-down, drag-out fight for conservative values and ideals. I mainly wanted to point out the slippery slope, that blindly following leaders just for their ideology might eventually lead to them making a decision that you actually disagree with, but by then it's too late because you've given them too much power already.AlbqOwl said:I don't believe I mentioned the Bible in this discussion. Is it important to you that they replace the Constitution with the Bible? Why?
Binary_Digit said:Sorry, you were talking about wanting them to have a knock-down, drag-out fight for conservative values and ideals. I mainly wanted to point out the slippery slope, that blindly following leaders just for their ideology might eventually lead to them making a decision that you actually disagree with, but by then it's too late because you've given them too much power already.
I think he was just "blindly" accepting the perception that all Conservatives are Bible-thumpers and attempting to use it publicly as a cheap-shot...AlbqOwl said:I don't recall mentioning blindly following leaders just for their ideology either. I do recall inferring that conservatives elect representatives to represent us and our values. There is a huge difference between that and 'blindly following leaders'.
danarhea said:Good. She was not qualified in the first place, has no judicial experience whatsoever, and even flunked the questionaire given to her by the Judiciary Committee. She was a bad choice. Lets see if Bush can make a better one this time. The prevailing concensus is that Bush nominated Miers not from a position of strength, but from a position of weakness. Now Bush has a chance to show whether that is true or not. His next choice will either start the war in congress that many expect, or will show that he indeed is weak.
cnredd said:Before the left declares victory...please keep this in mind...
One of the major impacts that influenced the withdraw was that the Conservative base believed that she wasn't Conservative ENOUGH...
If the left thought she was too Conservative...wait 'til you see the NEXT nominee...
That's why the leaders of the left didn't jump in hemming and hawing...They knew the right was going to do that...If she was confirmed, the left would've actually WON...
Remember...it has been reported that Harry Reid, Democratic Senate Minority leader endorsed her nomination...Bush tried to reach accross the aisle and went with Reid's endorsement...It was the Conservative base that stopped it, so ease up with the Bush rants...at least on THIS issue...:2wave:
Now we are PROBABLY going to see a true fight...Expect Bush to appease the Conservative base and choose a nominee more in tune with them...That will create voices of dismay from the left...
Keep in mind these points...they are still valid...
One does not have to BE a judge to be nominated...Many Supreme Court justices have been chosen without judicial experience and have turned out quite well...
Check and see what the National Bar Association has to say on the next nominee...
Check & see what the "Gang of 14" has to say...
Read the first sentence again...Pacridge said:Left claim victory? How exactly would it be a victory for the left? I'd see this as a victory for the right wing rather then the left.
Er, no. I said it might eventually lead to them making a decision that you actually disagree with. That hypothetical decision is replacing the Constitution with the Bible. I assumed AlbqOwl would find that decision unacceptable, so I used it to illustrate a slippery slope.cnredd said:I think he was just "blindly" accepting the perception that all Conservatives are Bible-thumpers and attempting to use it publicly as a cheap-shot...
Now that that has been proven wrong, I'm SURE he would think twice before making such ill-informed generalizations again...
Maybe I shouldn't have said "blindly", but when someone says they want their leaders to fight for conservative/liberal values, I get the impression they are strictly conservative/liberal. Personally, I agree with conservatives on gun control and the economy for the most part, but I have a hard time making the same conclusions on several social issues without using the Bible. Especially on homosexuals. But maybe it's just me.AlbqOwl said:I don't recall mentioning blindly following leaders just for their ideology either. I do recall inferring that conservatives elect representatives to represent us and our values. There is a huge difference between that and 'blindly following leaders'.
cnredd said:I think he was just "blindly" accepting the perception that all Conservatives are Bible-thumpers and attempting to use it publicly as a cheap-shot...
Now that that has been proven wrong, I'm SURE he would think twice before making such ill-informed generalizations again...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?