Posted on 10/22/2005 9:19:11 AM PDT by Calpernia
I support the goals Miers made. Yes.
They are not quotas as laid out by the EOE.
OK, so if we're against gay rights we're tools of Islam, right?
Then the best qualified for the position needed to be filled would be requirements: 1) to be fluent in another culture's language and 2) familiarity with the country's customs.
Not using affirmative action still applies: those who best fill the needs are hired based on requirements and qualifications, not a person's skin color or sex.
Passing over someone whose SKILLS excel in the areas required simply because of their skin color or gender is wrong.
LOL check this out guys
Most conservative groups supported him. There's just NO WAY to tell for sure how a justice will turn out, and anti-Miers zealots turn off rank and file conservatives when they claim to know how Miers will turn out.
Don't be coy. This is yet another smear attempt on anyone who is openly disappointed with the Meirs nomination.
You know very well that FReepers are exponentially more likely to form opinions on this with no help from the far left groups you have attempted to associate us with.
Your last paragraph means nothing. It's like asking someone if they quit molesting children only to say at the end of the diatribe...heh.."I was just kidding".
?????
Let me put it to you this way. If someone were holding a gun to your head, and a member of MoveOn.org came by and shouted "Stop! Don't shoot that person!", would you then turn to the pereson holding the gun and say "oh, well, if MoveOn doesn't want you to shoot me, it must be the right thing to do. Go ahead and pull the trigger."?
Harriet Miers is not qualified to be on the Supreme Court. It matters little who nominated her. It does, however, say a lot about you that you feel opinions can only come from being told what to think by others.
if you dont back quotas you're a commie! ;)
And you not being able to read says a lot about you :)
Politics is a relative game. There are a huge amount of people who voted for Bush not because they liked or trusted him or his family, but because relatively speaking in an electoral process, you choose between two choices and your argument in that kind of process is compelling. But this ain't no election. I don't have no vote. The vote that I had I used on Bush. This nomination is a huge disappointment. Miers may be confirmed, but if she is, it will not be because she is what Bush said she was, she will have shown herself to be more than he said she was, and much more than she appears from the very little we know about her. Bush made a mistake. And although I support him as President and Commander-in-Chief, I will not support him blindly on something which needs to be rectified. That is what the Democrats do, support their elected leaders with loyalty usually seen in criminal gangs. I could not support a rapist as President and I didn't. But I will not support Bush when he makes such an egregious mistake on something so important that it may have been the one single issue most important to the conservatives that voted for him. If not supporting Bush on this issue is some kind of political treason, then hang me. But my loyalty is limited by principle, your argument is preaching to Democratic choir, because their loyalty has no bounds, even if it means supporting a serial rapist just because he is "our boy" and not supporting him in his crimes is giving aid and comfort to the enemy or as Howard Dean would label us the evil "white Christians".
The point is that Republican Senators shouldn't be put in a position to have to vote against President Bush's nominee. That would be a disaster. That's why it's important that Miers withdraw at the suggestion (behind the scenes) of President Bush.
Another liberal tactic, tar everyone because someone you have nothing in common with might agree with you on one specific issue for very different reasons. Another popular play from the liberal playbook that has been used in Miers-Gate is to avoid answering real questions by crying sexism, or racism, or elitism, etc.
>>>>If not supporting Bush on this issue is some kind of political treason, then hang me. But my loyalty is limited by principle, your argument is preaching to Democratic choir, because their loyalty has no bounds, even if it means supporting a serial rapist just because he is "our boy" and not supporting him in his crimes is giving aid and comfort to the enemy or as Howard Dean would label us the evil "white Christians".
And you insinuating my post implies that is absolutely unfair.
From my post:
>>>>>If you aren't supporting Harriet Miers, take some time to do a search of BUSHCOMMISSION.ORG. Not a site search. A search to see where info is pulled from:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22bushcommission.org%22&hl=en&lr=&filter=0
Make sure if you are not on the side of supporting Miers, it isn't information that came from SDS, Not In Our Name, MoveOn.org, of the NLG.<<<<
Miers also supported affirmative action in the Dallas Fire Department:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1498195/posts?q=1&&page=201
"Miers' time on Dallas City Council provides some insight"
Miers was one of 10 Dallas council members to unanimously approve a 1989 agenda item that revised minimum height, weight and vision requirements for Dallas firefighters to facilitate "promotion of certain ranks in the Fire Department," particularly women.
The agenda item's title: "Implementation of Fire Department Affirmative Action Plan."
---
Guilt by association, Cal?
This is beneath you.
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.