Posted on 10/06/2005 3:13:10 AM PDT by KMAJ2
Learn how to spell her name for chrissakes!
[[Tip: Put down the thesaurus and pick up Strunk and White. That punctuation is atrocious. Unless you meant to say that fingertips, bootlickers, bushbots, etc. were flowing "unctuous bile." And I think that would be even worse. . .]]
Thank you for the critique. There were a few other errors, too. It happens when I don't proofread. Shame on me. I don't use a thesaurus, though. If I wish to publish, I may need Strunk and White, the AP News Stylebook is short on detail.
>>they will be quite happy after seeing the first several votes
How do you know? And what will her votes be 10 years hence? Her loyalty is to GWB, not to any particular reading of the Constitution.
[[Miers not Meirs]]
Thanks for the correction
You make it sound like some personal decision that has no impact on the rest of us.
Quite an exhibit of leadership......NOT.
Uh oh, people are not happy, I'd better attack the President too.
Ugh.
Clearly the shoe fit. Duck and cover! Cause the flames will be coming your way!!!!
Your vanity post is voided by the logical fallacy of begging the question. That question is: Will Miers be a strict constructionist on the Court?
The correct answer is: Nobody knows.
As for CJ Roberts, his questioning during the first oral arguments he presided over were troubling. Now, he might have been playing devil's advocate to elicit reasoned responses in support of his position, but if you take his questioning at face value, he is favorable to sweeping federal government takeover of certain States Rights (although this particular issue is a painful one to give to Oregon, the right to kill terminally ill who want to die.) Taking over States Rights is hardly a strict constructionalist viewpoint. Time will tell, when the ruling on that case is released.
But for now, it's troubling.
AMEN!
How do you possible make THAT leap? Because she answered a question once that said that she believe that homosexuals should have civil rights? Of COURSE they should have civil rights, just like every other citizen in this country. What Ms. Miers did NOT say, and many in their haste to condemn her seem to be missing this point, is that homosexuals should have some sort of SPECIAL rights that the rest of us don't have solely based on their choice of lifestyle. That's a position I haven't seen ascribed to her anywhere.
I wouldn't have, but Frank T apparently had a problem -- just trying to accommodate him. Probably just should have ignored him.
Was this written by a thesaurus?
I support Harriet Meyers because W is nominating somebody he knows very well (unlike Mr. Souter and his nominating pres). W isn't going to compromise here.
This post is very, very, funny because the poster is what he describes.
I'll repeat your question. How do you know?
I have yet to call one Harriet supporter a name. Meanwhile I have been told to go back to DU, called a liberal, a moonbat, and much more. I am not just gonna walk lockstep in what I think was not a wise pick. Bush could of handled both these choices better.
She was his personal attorney, his counsel as Governor and President. GWB only keeps those with great loyalty in his inner circle. The only thing proved is her loyalty to the President.
If that's the reality with this line-up of GOP senators, then we need them to cave. On record.
How else can conservative republicans begin the process of overthrowing incumbant GOP senators? There needs to be a tangible rallying issue.
Yup. You got it, Frank. We frequently hear people say about those on the left, "How can they keep electing that Teddy Kennedy/Barney Franks/Barbara Boxer, et al?". At least those pukes actually represent their liberal extremist constituents. We, however, keep electing McCains and Specters and Snowes and the like who actually work against the Conservative platform in all their middle mushiness. Cheerleading for your side when it is WRONG is, well, just WRONG.
Q: What is the fastest way to have your facts, grammar, spelling and tone checked on any thesis you may wish to publish?
A: Post it on Free Republic
;)
How is it an ad hominem attack to point out the obvious? This SCOTUS nominee is at best a "stealth" candidate. There is no stand being taken.
If decades of ground work results in Miers, then yes, it is logical to call the federal Republican leadership out for what it has done: sold us out.
And if that is true, these people do not deserve our votes or money.
But here's an ad hominem for you. Only the most unprincipled and blind GOP supporters will not act to reverse the course this party is taking, even if that means booting some representatives out of the House. It is not enough to be anti-Democrat. There's many on our side that are part of the problem too. Miers is not the person to stand up against Kelo, first amendment and abortion type issues.
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.