Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Whose Agenda are you Parrotting When You Do NOT Support Miers?
Net Searches ^ | October 22, 2005

Posted on 10/22/2005 9:19:11 AM PDT by Calpernia

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 421-427 next last
To: Petronski

And you posted it in Frickin' BIG Type too!!


161 posted on 10/22/2005 10:37:37 AM PDT by Colonial Warrior ("I've entered the snapdragon part of my life ....Part of me has snapped...the rest is draggin'.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King

hahahah can you believe this??


162 posted on 10/22/2005 10:38:17 AM PDT by Stellar Dendrite ( Mike Pence for President!!! http://acuf.org/issues/issue34/050415pol.asp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: bourbon
people who have sworn an oath of fealty to George W. Bush and consider loyalty to him to be the sum total of "conservatism."

Pithy.

163 posted on 10/22/2005 10:38:24 AM PDT by wardaddy (Peace and love and warm hugs to everyone...sandalwood and patchouli too)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia

In a utopia, the best person for the job, regardless of age, gender, skin color, "should be" everybody's desire. It doesn't happen, however, for one reason or another. Forcing it to be so creates as many problems, imho, as allowing it to come naturally. And, for example, many smaller companies, this doesn't happen because of familial reasons (i.e., the son takes over from the father, etc.). Perhaps the son isn't the best to take over, but that was the father's perogative...to keep it in the family....it's not always about prejudice.


164 posted on 10/22/2005 10:38:27 AM PDT by nicmarlo (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Sparky

"This has to be the dumbest post at FR in a long time."

I'll second that.
165 posted on 10/22/2005 10:38:39 AM PDT by Panerai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Doohickey

Absolutely. Immediately.



::rolls eyes::


166 posted on 10/22/2005 10:38:44 AM PDT by Calpernia (Breederville.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: ElPatriota
"I am really fearful this woman is a "try to get along" type... and that is definitely NOT what we need in the SC. We need someone very clear on his philosophy (conservative hopefully) and be ready to battle for those ideas"
__________________________________________

Isn't that in large measure what we've been fighting for?
We represent (social/economic conservatives) what's good in America and what's worth fighting for, if Miers withdraws and a strong conservative is put up as the nominee are the pro-Miers crowd going to be supportive?
167 posted on 10/22/2005 10:38:56 AM PDT by wmfights (lead, follow, or get out of the way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia

I'm supporting my own agenda, as I always do. I don't blindly follow any one.


168 posted on 10/22/2005 10:39:09 AM PDT by bigsigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
"Why" they end up on one side or the other is important.

I'm sure they'll all give flowery little speeches outlining their reservations, etc, but in the end, I think Miers will pass with virtually unanimous R support.

Now, don't get me wrong, I would've picked someone else. But after watching the MSM attack Bush over Katrina, Iraq, watching the attacks on Delay and Frist, and listening to Chris Matthews and the other froth-at-the-mouth leftists on Plame-gate, I'm feeling a lot more like a team player.

That means I'm not going to help the other side by attacking our own quarterback, whether he throws an interception or not, at least not right now, at this time.

Call me a Bushbot if you want, but I expect almost ALL of the R Senators will make the same political calculation.

169 posted on 10/22/2005 10:39:09 AM PDT by ez (No more pointy-headed intellectuals on the Supreme Court.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Reactionary
Name one without a paper trail.

Nominees with no discernable position are per se unacceptable.
We do not run government by guess.

170 posted on 10/22/2005 10:39:59 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Colonial Warrior
No, no, no, you disagreed with me, so the only logical conclusion is that you must have obtained your information from a disreputable source. I know that's true, because I read it somewhere here on Free Republic! :-)

Plus, I can't replace my clock. I voted for it, so I'm not allowed to admit that it can ever be wrong. To question the accuracy of my clock would be disloyal, sexist, traitorous... uh... well, you get the idea.

And are we allowed to use the word "azimuth"?

171 posted on 10/22/2005 10:40:27 AM PDT by Jokelahoma (Animal testing is a bad idea. They get all nervous and give wrong answers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Reactionary; Calpernia
Communists are always such cute little things. And so very harmless.

Harmless, yes . . . until those darned FR Communists wind up defeating Miers and we wind up with JRB, Luttig, McConnell or Alito as the next SC justice, and suddenly it's not so funny ;-)

172 posted on 10/22/2005 10:40:27 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest (read my posts on Today show bias at www.newsbusters.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia

Did you used to cause as much trouble at St. Dominic's Academy as you do here? ;-)


173 posted on 10/22/2005 10:40:36 AM PDT by Incorrigible (If I lead, follow me; If I pause, push me; If I retreat, kill me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ez
I'm supporting Miers because I support the Constitution and the President's right to nominate a Christian woman if he decides to.

Is there anyone who doesn't support the Constitution and the President's right to nominate a Christian woman if he decides to?

174 posted on 10/22/2005 10:41:02 AM PDT by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: bourbon
Even if Miers is unanimously confirmed by the Senate, that won't change the fact that she is unqualified.

I'm not supporting her because of YOUR qualifications. I'm supporting her because there is an all-out full-court press right now to make Republicans appear weak and corrupt so Hillary! can be President.

Now is not the time to argue amongst ourselves.

Besides, I believe she'll do a good job.

175 posted on 10/22/2005 10:41:30 AM PDT by ez (No more pointy-headed intellectuals on the Supreme Court.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King
It turns out that I was being brainwashed by SDS, it's not like Meirs is an unqualified crony or anything.

ALCOA - not Reynolds. You're using the wrong brand.
Putzhead.

176 posted on 10/22/2005 10:41:43 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia
As one who hasn't joined the uproar to can Miers, I find this less than helpful. Guilt by association, flamebait, and all that.
177 posted on 10/22/2005 10:41:52 AM PDT by dighton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo

>>>>Forcing it to be so creates as many problems, imho, as allowing it to come naturally.

Absolutely agree! That is the EOE quotas.

Goals for guidelines aren't the same. I believe a freeper stated that pretty well earlier on in this thread when he used the example of computer companies and speaking Chinese. This thread is getting way too long to backswim on though and I am signing off shortly to run errands.


178 posted on 10/22/2005 10:42:19 AM PDT by Calpernia (Breederville.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Luke21

Good points all, Like21. IMAO we need to be more like Spartans and less like Athenians, that is, a little less emotion and a more dispassionate thinking with this nomination.
Like a deficient infant, she's `lame' and should be left to the elements. I'm sure she's a great gal but it's certain President Bush approached her, she considered accepting and then did accept.
She should withdraw her nomination on her own motion instead of doing a Clinton: "Waal, I guess we gotta win then . . . " (We're still suffering as a nation from his self-serving decision, but then it's always been all about Bill where Clinton's concerned.)
The Athenians lost, recall. The stakes here are too high.
Calpurnia, a little less lefty-like heat and a little more light, por favor.

"The best lack conviction while the worst are full of passionate intensity." Yeats


179 posted on 10/22/2005 10:42:50 AM PDT by OkieDoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King
Is there anyone who doesn't support the Constitution and the President's right to nominate a Christian woman if he decides to?

Yeah, you. You're demanding that Bush accede to your idea of "qualifications," and that he withdraw his nominee because she doesn't fulfill your "qualifications."

180 posted on 10/22/2005 10:43:00 AM PDT by ez (No more pointy-headed intellectuals on the Supreme Court.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 421-427 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson