Posted on 10/25/2005 10:55:57 AM PDT by bigsky
that's a nice way of spinning things sinkspur.
you support affirmative action at the potential cost of human life.
"So, I don't see where Miers was pushing some kind of liberal agenda here."
so affirmative action is now not part of the liberal agenda, it is conservative. LOL
And you know this because...........?
No I don't. And the fact that no human lives actually HAVE been lost in 16 years is proof that the department was not damaged by making room for women.
Thus her Republican credentials are not compelling and I see no conservative credentials whatsoever.
This ad will run over and over on the MSM for free. Can't blame them for making a buck.
"Who has been advocating ignoring the law and what laws do they intend to ignore?"
Here, I'll answer for Earthdweller: The Constitution requires that the President appoint and the Senate Consents. The People have no place in the process under the Constitution, and therefore, are legally obligated to stay out. To express an opinion is to ignore the Constitutional procedure.
I think that's the gist of it.
There were Conservatives, who thought that EVERYTHING that Reagan said and did was terrible and even stupid. No, not me, but there were lots of them.
You were in college, you have no idea just what was going on outside of that purview.
Fair weather friends are as useful as fair weather fans. Not useful. Actually useless.
LOL!! No deaths or even injuries (I did a google search) reported from the Dallas FD over the last 16 years with a woman involved (or a man, for that matter).
So, the results prove you wrong, SD. I know that bothers the hell out of you.
Say, on "lowering weight standards". A couple of Dallas firemen I've seen could stand to lose some weight, and they were both men.
And how did "vision standards" have to be adjusted to accommodate women? Do women have worse eye sight than men?
If you want to be a critic do so in the framework of the process or you lose credibility and simply look like a bully calling for her withdraw.
I respect anyone who feels Miers should not be on the court but they loose my support when the try to go around what the framers intended. To ignore what the Constitution says in this matter makes any true conservative look like a hypocrite.
In addition, I have seen nothing but speculation that Miers is not a conservative. I wish just one person could give me absolute proof of this without using an anonymous source or obvious spin.
But they all just say, "Trust me" don't trust Bush. How ridiculous is that as an argument?
Hmmm...
The ability for conservatives to mobilize on the internet just didn't exist back then. And in total the conservative media has been magnified one hundred fold.
I'd say it's time for the Republican Party to run true conservatives for office. The argument...."but the RINO is better than the opposition" just doesn't cut it. The opposition was never in a position to run a conservative.
Ditto the Supreme Court. The big promise that kept the social-constitutionalist conservatives on board was conservative Supreme Court justice with impeccable credentials. We have the power to take over the ship, by standing up against being stood up.
Cute..but you know that people have been calling for her withdrawal despite the fact the the President has the executive privilege to appoint the nominee, which is his exclusive executive right through the Constitution and the people have no say in the matter at that point. Some are trying to go around the process and just won't admit it.
The appropriate place and time to voice your concerns is to the Senators during the hearings.
Before there ever were home computers, people talked to each other; face to face, on the phone, and *gasp*, even wrote snail mail. This may surprise you, but long before you and I were even born, people communicated with each other and formed networks, which they used to amass very large protest groups. Unfortunately, the Socialists and Communists and Dems were and still are far better at this, than Conservatives have been/are to this very day.
I don't care what results you came up with from a google search or what your observations have been in the dallas papers over the course of 16 years. Niether is definitive in nature. Regardless of what has or hasn't happened, the fact remains it is dangerous to lower these standards in favor of hiring women. Yet politically correct liberals like you march on...
" I know that bothers the hell out of you."
No what bothers the hell out of me is a phony like yourself wants to argue that affirmative action IS actually good and is conservative.
The fact remains taht affirmative action never has been or will be a conservative principle.
And not only that, I give Miers credit, and I don't believe she is an idiot for a minute. I believe she 'understands' why we are so pissed off and I believe she is tought enough to "take it." (hardly destroyed!). She has to be smart enough to understand this is NOT about her, but about a president who did not have the guts to do things right. And because I believe she is smart I would be very suprised if she does not withdraw.
"I respect anyone who feels Miers should not be on the court but they loose my support when the try to go around what the framers intended."
I disagree that the expression of political opinion is against what the Framers intended. Because they did not consider the popular election of Senators, they could not have foreseen this situation, so they really could not have considered it.
"To ignore what the Constitution says in this matter makes any true conservative look like a hypocrite."
I disagree that what is happening here is in any way anti-constitutional. I disagree that anyone is ignoring the Constitution, except for those that ignore the 1st Amendment. Hypocrite? Feh. An accusation most commonly used by libs and children.
"In addition, I have seen nothing but speculation that Miers is not a conservative. I wish just one person could give me absolute proof of this without using an anonymous source or obvious spin."
I'm not arguing whether she's conservative or not. I don't care one way or the other. I care whether she has a strict constructionist judicial philosophy. Those are not the same. Having said that, many have provided information on non-conservative positions she has taken in the past. You choose to ignore them. Fine. But don't say they havn't been discussed.
"But they all just say, "Trust me" don't trust Bush. How ridiculous is that as an argument?"
I've never said that at all. I've said she's not qualified and explained why. I could of course simply reverse your argument and ask how ridiculous is it to have such an important position filled all on the basis of trust?
"Cute..but you know that people have been calling for her withdrawal despite the fact the the President has the executive privilege to appoint the nominee, which is his exclusive executive right through the Constitution and the people have no say in the matter at that point. Some are trying to go around the process and just won't admit it."
OK, I will just have to say that I think you are wrong in stating that the People have any obligation to be silent during this process. I do believe that's what you're saying. We have the Constitutional right, and I believe duty, to speak up and attempt to influence our elected officials in their decision-making.
Miers' supporters have some good arguments on their side. This is about the weakest.
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.