Harriett Miers Supreme Court nomination

Caine · Oct 13, 2005

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

getinvolved said:
As Bush stands by his nominee decision, I find it troubling that the major argument he has for her defense is that he does not know how she stands on many issues yet she is a good friend. As for her not changing her views well...what are her views??

Michael Brown was great example of what can happen when putting a friend in office that you don't know enough about. Bravo Bushy, bravo.

Actually, I watched something on TV where Brown wasn't the first person who Bush put in that spot. When he was first elected, Bush appointed one of his campaign managers in that position. And his this guy hired his buddy Micheal Brown to a high position within the organization. This campaign manager guy (don't remember his name) later left FEMA to work for....None other than Halliburton (im certain in a high position in the company, if he left being the head of a gov Organization to be there). So Bush promoted Brown to head of FEMA.

Canuck · Oct 13, 2005

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

Napoleon's Nightingale said:
Simple fact 1: Harriett Miers has no judicial experiance.
Simple fact 2: Harriet Miers is far too close the administration and to the republican party.
Simple fact 3: Shrub I mean Bush has a history of doling out nominations as political favors. Just look at Mike Brown and just about everyone in the Homeland Security Department with a leadership position.

they want a comlete neocon set up to control America
your Elite want you to be under their control at all times

Hoot · Oct 13, 2005

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

I think I'm the only one who knows why Bush nominated Harriet Miers for the USSC.

She's so scary looking, bush knows even Clarence Thomas wouldn't hit on her! LOL!

Navy Pride · Oct 13, 2005

Re: Opposition by the cons/repubs to Harriet Miers

26 X World Champs said:
More name calling Navy Pride? Unable to intellectually debate me or anyone else so you seem to often resort to your favorite tactic, name calling.

If our military minds were made up of people who believe the posts that you write then we would all be in serious trouble. Fortunately, our military personal are a whole lot smarter than that. They know that your posts are almost always written without any facts, are not based in any type of reality, and are, for the most part, wrong, wrong, wrong.

The people in our military are way too smart to believe your words. It doesn't take an intellect of even less than average intelligence to know, for sure, that the words in your posts are ignorant, biased, juvenile, slanted, and most importantly, WRONG.

You're a frickin' genius Navy Pride!

I was in the military for 21 years and people who have disdain for it like you no nothing about it.........If you were old enough during Nam you would have been one of the scumbags who waited at the gates of military bases to spit at and insult returning servicemen........

People like you are so superficial and easy to see through...........

Caine · Oct 13, 2005

Re: Opposition by the cons/repubs to Harriet Miers

Navy Pride said:
I was in the military for 21 years and people who have disdain for it like you no nothing about it.........If you were old enough during Nam you would have been one of the scumbags who waited at the gates of military bases to spit at and insult returning servicemen........

People like you are so superficial and easy to see through...........

No, people like you don't understand, can't comprehend, and (if you are even telling the truth) are too old and ****ing stupid to understand that under NO circumstances are there EVER just two sides to a debate.
You generalize WAYY to much. Someone can say, "I dont think Bush made the right decision in going into Iraq." your reply, "Well, your just a liberal terroist apologist! Die! Burn in hell!"
That is exactly how you act on these forums, and it makes you look like an ignorant fool, and quite frankly, and embarassment to service members everywhere, especially those in the Navy.

scottyz · Oct 13, 2005

Re: Opposition by the cons/repubs to Harriet Miers

Navy Pride said:
People like you are so superficial and easy to see through...........

This is particularly funny coming from you.

Navy Pride · Oct 13, 2005

Re: Opposition by the cons/repubs to Harriet Miers

Caine said:
No, people like you don't understand, can't comprehend, and (if you are even telling the truth) are too old and ****ing stupid to understand that under NO circumstances are there EVER just two sides to a debate.
You generalize WAYY to much. Someone can say, "I dont think Bush made the right decision in going into Iraq." your reply, "Well, your just a liberal terroist apologist! Die! Burn in hell!"
That is exactly how you act on these forums, and it makes you look like an ignorant fool, and quite frankly, and embarassment to service members everywhere, especially those in the Navy.

Well at least I am not a wanna be soldier or police office who lives in a fantasy world of wishing...so very sad...You really need to get a life my very liberal buddy........

Navy Pride · Oct 13, 2005

Re: Opposition by the cons/repubs to Harriet Miers

scottyz said:
This is particularly funny coming from you.

Thank you, I am glad you think so.....

Caine · Oct 13, 2005

Re: Opposition by the cons/repubs to Harriet Miers

Navy Pride said:
Well at least I am not a wanna be soldier or police office who lives in a fantasy world of wishing...so very sad...You really need to get a life my very liberal buddy........

And at least im not a wanna be Navy vietnam veteran who lives in a fantasy world of contradiction and lies and childishness, who is probably 12 years old.

26 X World Champs · Oct 13, 2005

Re: Opposition by the cons/repubs to Harriet Miers

Navy Pride said:
I was in the military for 21 years and people who have disdain for it like you no nothing about it.........If you were old enough during Nam you would have been one of the scumbags who waited at the gates of military bases to spit at and insult returning servicemen........

People like you are so superficial and easy to see through...........

You just can't write a post without calling someone a name. Let's see, in this one I'm a scumbag and I'm also anti-Military and I am a criminal, all in one post.

You dude have some severe issues. I read your posts and the words contained therein are almost always prejudicial towards someone. I cannot recall many posts of yours that I've read that are actually debating points or rebuttals. Calling me a scumbag is not a rebuttal, it's a personal attack.

Read my posts, I NEVER call you names, ever, not that I wouldn't like to, but intellectually I know it's inappropriate and against community rules. Your posts break rules consistently. I actually call you a frickin' genius in almost every post I write about you.

You call me a scumbag.

BTW - I was very, very against the Vietnam War. I would never have served. I still believe it was the worst war America has ever participated in, including, at least so far, the Iraq war.

All that being said, I went to a school called the Ethical Culture School where from 1st grade on we had a weekly class in ethics. It was in NYC and very liberal BUT no one I ever knew growing up disliked any enlisted or drafted soldiers.

The majority of people in the anti-war movement were against the war, not against the people fighting in the war. We simply didn't take too kindly to our neighbors coming home from Vietnam in a pine wood box at age 21, especially in vain because the 50,000+ Americans who died, and the hundreds of thousands of Americans who were maimed were sacrificed by our government for no damn reason....just like what's happening in Iraq today.

cnredd · Oct 14, 2005

Re: Opposition by the cons/repubs to Harriet Miers

26 X World Champs said:
Read my posts, I NEVER call you names, ever, not that I wouldn't like to, but intellectually I know it's inappropriate and against community rules.

26X World Champs said:
You're such a baby! Only someone with virtually no intelligence would write a post as stupid as your last one.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=111969&postcount=66

Caine · Oct 14, 2005

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

So, he called him a baby????
I think out of all the names he has been called that is the least hurtful one.

cnredd · Oct 14, 2005

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

Caine said:
So, he called him a baby????
I think out of all the names he has been called that is the least hurtful one.

I just read "I NEVER call you names, ever" and did a little research...found it somewhat false...

Would these counts or are we splitting hairs?...These were all directed at Navy Pride...not his posts or just his posts...him directly...

26 X World Champs said:
Thanks! I never doubted that Bush did not say it, I simply wanted to remind Navy Pride that using a blog as a source is meaningless.

Your source is VERY creditable. Too bad others are either too lazy, too stupid or too uninformed to do what you did, provide a real source to back your post.

Good job!

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=109126&postcount=68

26 X World Champs said:
The really amazing thing is that Navy Pride believes what he writes! Of course, no one else does, but being in denial is another sign of mental distress.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=106494&postcount=25

26 X World Champs said:
Can you imagine teaching Navy Pride's voting philosophy in school?

Can you imagine teaching Navy Pride's voting philisophy to naturalized American citizens?

Can you imagine teaching Navy Pride's voting philisophy to Iraqis?

Can you imagine teaching Navy Pride's voting philisophy anyone in the Middle East?

What level of intelligence is it that would actually post that voting for anyone who does not have a chance to win is a wasted vote? I think it shows a level severely below the average person!

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=104201&postcount=56

26 X World Champs said:
Don't you find it amazing that Navy Pride has too much of what I consider to be foolish PRIDE to ever admit that his posts are wrong, contain lies, and are chock-filled with name calling and belittling remarks that in no way address the subject of the debate.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=103692&postcount=53

Now please keep in mind that this is what he SAYS he does...

Gandhi>Bush said:
Attack his words not his character.

26 X World Champs said:
I most definitely did! Please reread my post and I think you will clearly see that I am constantly referring to his posts, not to him directly.

I am very conscious of the rules and I sculpt my posts as reply to the posts not the poster.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=104423&postcount=187

Now look at the above posts...What do you think?...

BTW - If you were the recipients of his posts, would you feel that being called a "frickin' genius" multiple times an attack on your posts or an attack on you?...:roll:

Navy Pride · Oct 14, 2005

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

cnredd said:
I just read "I NEVER call you names, ever" and did a little research...found it somewhat false...

Would these counts or are we splitting hairs?...These were all directed at Navy Pride...not his posts or just his posts...him directly...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=109126&postcount=68

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=106494&postcount=25

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=104201&postcount=56

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=103692&postcount=53

Now please keep in mind that this is what he SAYS he does...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=104423&postcount=187

Now look at the above posts...What do you think?...

BTW - If you were the recipients of his posts, would you feel that being called a "frickin' genius" multiple times an attack on your posts or an attack on you?...:roll:

cnredd, I appreciate your support but when it comes to name calling from people like Champs and Caine I really just consider the source....They use a common tactic that all people from the far left use......They do it here and in the political world with President Bush.....

When they have lost on and issue or a debate they resort to name calling and insults....Ir doesn't bother me because I know when they do that they have lost the debate.........They are so full of hatred for this president that is all they have......

Again thanks but it does not bother me......

cnredd · Oct 14, 2005

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

galenrox said:
Well to be fair, your assessment of their motives is more than likely incorrect. Essentially claiming people insult you cause they lack the logical arguments to argue with you has similar merit if I said everyone who doesn't like gays is that way cause they're closeted homosexuals.
I can say first hand that people insult you cause you're extremely frusterating to talk to, cause you never listen. You don't read people's posts and think about what they said, and try to find reason in it. Sometimes I question whether or not you actually read the posts.
If you accepted that you hold opinions, and these opinions aren't facts, and as far as you know you could be wrong, and actually came here to discuss as opposed to spread your ideas and insult everyone else's, you would've been accepted here with open arms. Take Cnredd for an example. He's a conservative, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find a liberal here that doesn't like him, other than the fact that he won't give me his TV. That is because he's not patronizing, and he treats everyone with respect, and is here to discuss ideas. You are here to insult people and belittle them, and thus no one likes you.

Strangely enough, I've noticed you've been better recently, at least towards me. This also frusterates me, because I cannot be mean to someone if they're being nice to me, or at least not being a dick, and yet insulting you in the basement has been a staple of my life for the last 4 months, and now I feel bad if I do.

But don't take this as an insult, I want you to read this, and listen to this as constructive criticism. If you give respect to people, that respect has a tendency of being recipricated, and if you accept that you're not infallible, then people will actually be more open minded to hearing your ideas.

If this was it's own thread(and "No"...don't make it one), I'd guess we'd have a majority agreement...

Deegan · Oct 14, 2005

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

galenrox said:
Well to be fair, your assessment of their motives is more than likely incorrect. Essentially claiming people insult you cause they lack the logical arguments to argue with you has similar merit if I said everyone who doesn't like gays is that way cause they're closeted homosexuals.
I can say first hand that people insult you cause you're extremely frusterating to talk to, cause you never listen. You don't read people's posts and think about what they said, and try to find reason in it. Sometimes I question whether or not you actually read the posts.
If you accepted that you hold opinions, and these opinions aren't facts, and as far as you know you could be wrong, and actually came here to discuss as opposed to spread your ideas and insult everyone else's, you would've been accepted here with open arms. Take Cnredd for an example. He's a conservative, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find a liberal here that doesn't like him, other than the fact that he won't give me his TV. That is because he's not patronizing, and he treats everyone with respect, and is here to discuss ideas. You are here to insult people and belittle them, and thus no one likes you.

Strangely enough, I've noticed you've been better recently, at least towards me. This also frusterates me, because I cannot be mean to someone if they're being nice to me, or at least not being a dick, and yet insulting you in the basement has been a staple of my life for the last 4 months, and now I feel bad if I do.

But don't take this as an insult, I want you to read this, and listen to this as constructive criticism. If you give respect to people, that respect has a tendency of being recipricated, and if you accept that you're not infallible, then people will actually be more open minded to hearing your ideas.

I think we could all do more of this, and I will acknowledge that have done the same things at times, especially when frustration gets the best of me. Still, one should not come to a political forum to be "liked", you are certainly setting yourself up for disappointment if this is your goal. You have to be real, honest, and sometimes brutally honest, and with these principles, most likely you will have some folks that dislike you.

Good call though Rox.:cheers:

Caine · Oct 14, 2005

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

Navy Pride said:
cnredd, I appreciate your support but when it comes to name calling from people like Champs and Caine I really just consider the source....They use a common tactic that all people from the far left use......They do it here and in the political world with President Bush.....

When they have lost on and issue or a debate they resort to name calling and insults....Ir doesn't bother me because I know when they do that they have lost the debate.........They are so full of hatred for this president that is all they have......

Again thanks but it does not bother me......

Funny you say this because most of the time I post in a forum, and I am debating something replying to a message of another user or what not, you jump in screaming liberal and then you have to mention clinton like he somehow relates to the issue (many times you have done this), or just make general remarks about liberals being terrorist supporters and attack me personally because I don't fit in with a black and white classification that you always use. There are more than 2 arguments to any post, you don't seem to understand that. This is why Im going to put you on ignore now so I don't have to listen to your posts, which do not add to the character of the debate, and bring me down to an ignorant level of posting as well, which makes me look bad.

gordontravels · Oct 14, 2005

Re: Opposition by the cons/repubs to Harriet Miers

Pacridge said:
Sorry, we don't ban people for saying stupid things.

And you call yourself a moderator? I call this post a disgrace. :duel

gordontravels · Oct 14, 2005

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

I believe Harriett Miers will be confirmed.

It has been pointed out that LIBERAL Democrats don't know what she stands for: are they that incompetent that they can't go back in her legal career and give us examples of her being a bad girl?

It has been pointed out that CONSERVATIVE Republicans are unhappy with their President for nominating her: if this is such an unpoplar thing why not amend the Constitution or write a bill so President's can't propose what or nominate who they want?

It has been pointed out that the media doesn't tell us anything but the scandalous dissatisfaction: Of course, don't be surprised. They report opinion, not news.

I just took a shot at a moderator who simply fostered the continuation of name calling and disrespect in this thread which probably plants me firmly amongst all the rest except for my garish fonts, colors and italics. Still, I'm better than any of you (at something). :duel

Hoot · Oct 14, 2005

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

Hoot said:
I think I'm the only one who knows why Bush nominated Harriet Miers for the USSC.

She's so scary looking, bush knows even Clarence Thomas wouldn't hit on her! LOL!

Gee? None of you thought my joke was funny? LOL

Why do I bother?

AlbqOwl · Oct 14, 2005

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

gordontravels said:
I believe Harriett Miers will be confirmed.

It has been pointed out that LIBERAL Democrats don't know what she stands for: are they that incompetent that they can't go back in her legal career and give us examples of her being a bad girl?

It has been pointed out that CONSERVATIVE Republicans are unhappy with their President for nominating her: if this is such an unpoplar thing why not amend the Constitution or write a bill so President's can't propose what or nominate who they want?

It has been pointed out that the media doesn't tell us anything but the scandalous dissatisfaction: Of course, don't be surprised. They report opinion, not news.

I just took a shot at a moderator who simply fostered the continuation of name calling and disrespect in this thread which probably plants me firmly amongst all the rest except for my garish fonts, colors and italics. Still, I'm better than any of you (at something). :duel

If the Democrats were smart, they would treat Miers with the utmost gentleness and cordiality, asking the traditional normal questions, quizzing her on a few unconsequential court cases, nodding pleasantly at her answers, and then passing her on to the Republican majority to deal with. They won't of course. They'll be their usual contentious selves, but that as usual won't be the wisest course for them.

But if the Democrats get smart just this once, the Republicans won't have the pressure to defend her and will be in a quandary. It will be dropped in their lap to make the decision. Do they put a less-than-appealing justice on the high court or do they say no? They know how to stick up for an underdog. But do they put the underdog on the high court without any challenge whatsoever?

As far as Miers herself goes, nobody knows whether she'll be good or bad. Nobody knows what she knows. Is she a constitutional scholar? Is she a product of her Democrat roots or her conservative ideology? As far as perception goes, she is the warm sweater that you got for Christmas when you really wanted a Red Ryder BB gun. The sweater is useful, practical thing, but a deep disappointment just the same.

gordontravels · Oct 14, 2005

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

AlbqOwl said:
If the Democrats were smart, they would treat Miers with the utmost gentleness and cordiality, asking the traditional normal questions, quizzing her on a few unconsequential court cases, nodding pleasantly at her answers, and then passing her on to the Republican majority to deal with. They won't of course. They'll be their usual contentious selves, but that as usual won't be the wisest course for them.

But if the Democrats get smart just this once, the Republicans won't have the pressure to defend her and will be in a quandary. It will be dropped in their lap to make the decision. Do they put a less-than-appealing justice on the high court or do they say no? They know how to stick up for an underdog. But do they put the underdog on the high court without any challenge whatsoever?

As far as Miers herself goes, nobody knows whether she'll be good or bad. Nobody knows what she knows. Is she a constitutional scholar? Is she a product of her Democrat roots or her conservative ideology? As far as perception goes, she is the warm sweater that you got for Christmas when you really wanted a Red Ryder BB gun. The sweater is useful, practical thing, but a deep disappointment just the same.

Harriett Miers has been in public life for 30 years.

She was a member of the Dallas City Council.

She was a state official.

She was consistently listed in the top 100 attorneys in the United States by the American Bar Association out of over 400,000 attorneys.

If there is some dirt on Harriett Miers and it can't be found then it isn't Harriett Miers that is incompetent but those that are opposing her without reason except for political partisanship and their simple - Bush appointed her so she isn't good enough. She will be confirmed after hearings I will watch.

Remember Brown vs. Board? Big court case decided by the Supreme Court. Seven of nine of those justices had no experience sitting on the bench. Hey! The world still turns.

So far the hearings are scheduled to begin on NOVEMBER 7TH. Why not go to C-span and watch then lets get that up or down vote and say see? Either I'll say it or someone else will. :duel

Caine · Oct 14, 2005

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

gordontravels said:
Harriett Miers has been in public life for 30 years.

She was a member of the Dallas City Council.

She was a state official.

She was consistently listed in the top 100 attorneys in the United States by the American Bar Association out of over 400,000 attorneys.

If there is some dirt on Harriett Miers and it can't be found then it isn't Harriett Miers that is incompetent but those that are opposing her without reason except for political partisanship and their simple - Bush appointed her so she isn't good enough. She will be confirmed after hearings I will watch.

Remember Brown vs. Board? Big court case decided by the Supreme Court. Seven of nine of those justices had no experience sitting on the bench. Hey! The world still turns.

So far the hearings are scheduled to begin on NOVEMBER 7TH. Why not go to C-span and watch then lets get that up or down vote and say see? Either I'll say it or someone else will. :duel

Dude, the republicans dislike her more than the democrats.
So, I guess, your statement says that the republicans don't think she is good enough because Bush appointed her, thats saying alot about the Republican party.

AlbqOwl · Oct 14, 2005

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

gordontravels said:
Harriett Miers has been in public life for 30 years.

She was a member of the Dallas City Council.

She was a state official.

She was consistently listed in the top 100 attorneys in the United States by the American Bar Association out of over 400,000 attorneys.

If there is some dirt on Harriett Miers and it can't be found then it isn't Harriett Miers that is incompetent but those that are opposing her without reason except for political partisanship and their simple - Bush appointed her so she isn't good enough. She will be confirmed after hearings I will watch.

Remember Brown vs. Board? Big court case decided by the Supreme Court. Seven of nine of those justices had no experience sitting on the bench. Hey! The world still turns.

So far the hearings are scheduled to begin on NOVEMBER 7TH. Why not go to C-span and watch then lets get that up or down vote and say see? Either I'll say it or someone else will. :duel

Hey, I'm not knocking her. I'm stating what I think is the perception of her. I'm pretty sure there is no dirt on her, or it would have surfaced by now. But it's uncomfortable not knowing her judicial temperament regardless of her experience. Is she another believed to be a conservative originalist who will instead turn out to be a Stevens or a Souter?

But can you honestly say you aren't disappointed in this nomination? I wanted one of the knowns--the ones that raise liberal hackles and prompt all the teeth and claws to come out. I wanted a knock down drag out fight on the Senate floor. I wanted them to initiate the nuclear option. I wanted the Republicans to finally stand up on their hind legs, develop a backbone, and do the job we elected them to do. I wanted a candidate I could feel really good about, proud of, inspired with, and one that would nail GWB's legacy to finally accomplish a desperately needed reform of the high court.

But I got a practical warm sweater. So sue me.

Navy Pride · Oct 14, 2005

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

Like I said in a previous post when push comes to shove and the vote is taken the usual suspects will oppose her and Republicans will fall in line and vote for her confirmation.......She will receive more votes then Roberts did.......

Take it to the bank.........

Harriett Miers Supreme Court nomination

Caine

Canuck

Well-known member

Hoot

Navy Pride

Caine

scottyz

Navy Pride

Navy Pride

Caine

26 X World Champs

cnredd

Major General Big Lug

Caine

cnredd

Major General Big Lug

Navy Pride

cnredd

Major General Big Lug

Deegan

Caine

gordontravels

Well-known member

gordontravels

Well-known member

Hoot

AlbqOwl

gordontravels

Well-known member

Caine

AlbqOwl

Navy Pride

Harriett Miers Supreme Court nomination

Well-known member

Major General Big Lug

Major General Big Lug

Major General Big Lug

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency