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

Skip to comments.

READ MY LIPS: THOMAS AND SCALIA
Me | 10-7-02 | Me

Posted on 10/07/2005 8:51:48 PM PDT by Urbane_Guerilla

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 381-392 next last
To: TheForceOfOne

If he says "shrub," call the kitties. :-)


101 posted on 10/07/2005 10:42:37 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
I'm not a conservative, much less a Republican, first.

I have three priorities.

Patriotism, conservatism, and the Republican Party, in that order!

And my allegiance to the last is only as binding insofar as it adheres to the first two principles enumerated.

102 posted on 10/07/2005 10:43:00 PM PDT by Do not dub me shapka broham ("I'm okay with being unimpressive. It helps me sleep better.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
"Our own" what?

I understand why you ask that and it is a good point.

By "our own," I might mean something different from some folks in the forum.

By "our own," I mean a person who favors a jurist who believes in the original intent of the Founders.

By "our own," I mean someone who believes that government operates the best, when it does the few things it is supposed to do, in a way which is respectful of the people.

By "our own," I mean a person who is fundamentally influenced by the joy of being a free person instead of someone who is fundamentally loyal to the person who holds a government post.

103 posted on 10/07/2005 10:43:27 PM PDT by Urbane_Guerilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham
A more apt analogy would be a member of the College of Cardinals who was eligible to be selected as the next pontiff, but who had spent sixty years of his life desperately avoiding comment on any controversial doctrinal issue.

You're on my turf now. Joseph Ratzinger was deemed, by the media and most Catholic commentators and by me, frankly, as too old, at 78, to be elected to the papacy. He was written off prior to the conclave.

Ratzinger was also typed as a stuffy old fuddy-duddy, doctrinally conservative, and ready to roll back Vatican II.

He has proven to be totally opposite of the dire forecasts. He is open, he listens, he is a focused, polished speaker, and has, as his first priority, Jesus' mandate that "they all may be one," that is, the reunion of Christian Churches.

Ratzinger was an inspired choice for pope, and, I believe, Miers is an inspired choice for the Supreme Court.

104 posted on 10/07/2005 10:45:07 PM PDT by sinkspur (American Staffordshire Terriers should be bred out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Urbane_Guerilla

I think Bush has let a large portion of his base down. With the pool of proven conservative originalists to choose from, his Mier's pick has me just shaking my head.


105 posted on 10/07/2005 10:45:23 PM PDT by doesnt suffer fools gladly (Bush haters are insane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KingKongCobra

LOL!


106 posted on 10/07/2005 10:46:42 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham
Excuse me, but it appers you're advocating

A LITMUS TEST

Conservatives are against those; why are you here?

107 posted on 10/07/2005 10:47:55 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Urbane_Guerilla

No politician who wishes election to national office can avoid telling powerful groups what they want to hear. Look up Thomas Jefferson's campaign speeches, Andrew Jackson's, Lincoln's. Compare what they said while on the stump with what they did in office.

Just the way democracy works. The Demos has a very short memory.

Perhaps the last President that I see as honest was John Adams. Eugene McCarthy was the most honest candidate in my lifetime. Just how it is.

By the way, I was mad as a hornet over the "no new taxes" business. "No new taxes" was the elder Bush's whole election campaign. He got Clinton elected. A bit much.


108 posted on 10/07/2005 10:48:03 PM PDT by Iris7 ("Let me go to the house of the Father.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham
Mark my words.
109 posted on 10/07/2005 10:49:08 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
But Ratzinger had a clearly delineated-almost overpowering-philosophy.

No one was questioning his credentials to be the vicar of Christ.

No one was scratching their heads, wondering what fundamental beliefs he valued above others, even if there were debates over what specific policies he might implement during his pontificate.

Harriet Miers is a blank slate.

A question mark.

This is not how you go about reshaping the Supreme Court.

110 posted on 10/07/2005 10:49:50 PM PDT by Do not dub me shapka broham ("I'm okay with being unimpressive. It helps me sleep better.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

And they've been like that for five straight days, 24/7.

One might even consider the fact that that one has an agenda and/or is being paid.


111 posted on 10/07/2005 10:49:53 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Give her a hearing. Let her share her views with the Senators, and with us. If she fails, she will go.

She is entitled to a hearing and your position is a fair one, but a failure scenario appears unlikely barring some major embarassment or faux pas on her part-thus I predict she will be confirmed even with a sub-par showing and that will be that.
112 posted on 10/07/2005 10:50:28 PM PDT by Blowtorch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Actually, I'm currently looking for gainful employment.

If I were getting paid for each cogent reply that I've made to a poorly-conceived argument in favor of the Miers nomination, then I would be rolling in it.

113 posted on 10/07/2005 10:51:52 PM PDT by Do not dub me shapka broham ("I'm okay with being unimpressive. It helps me sleep better.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Spiff

The President of the United States disagrees with you, so therefore HE must be betraying you.


114 posted on 10/07/2005 10:52:14 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
The truth is they want their own Warren court and they are every bit as willing to destroy any nominee that does not share their zeal. I am as sick of the far right as I am of the far left.

Me, too.

They WANT the GOP to fail.

115 posted on 10/07/2005 10:53:17 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Iris7
Just the way democracy works. The Demos has a very short memory.

The truth is the best. Liberty and freedom are the fundamental truth of human existence.

116 posted on 10/07/2005 10:54:29 PM PDT by Urbane_Guerilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: doesnt suffer fools gladly
...his Mier's pick has me just shaking my head.

Rest assured, you're not alone in your consternation.

117 posted on 10/07/2005 10:54:51 PM PDT by Do not dub me shapka broham ("I'm okay with being unimpressive. It helps me sleep better.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Blowtorch
Until the hearings; you know, the very thing called for in the Constitution?

Once we find out it will have been too late to do anything about it anyways, except damn the President.

Well, you're already doing that, so you're way ahead of your game plan, aren't you?

118 posted on 10/07/2005 10:55:14 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
My question for these people is, if they make a point of not being loyal to the Republican Party then why should that expect any loyalty from the Republican Party?

Precisely! The old "Just try to win without us" mantra is false; it is THEY who cannot win without us, simply because we actually HAVE a party and ELECT people to office.

They are here for two reasons: because they 1) don't have a party of their own, and 2) want this one.

Most of the people on this "demand" threads never supported Bush in the first place way back in 1999.

Again I ask, who are the *real* Republicans In Name Only.

119 posted on 10/07/2005 10:57:59 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: DCPatriot
He's proven in 5 years, he's got gravitas ...up the whaazooo!

CFR
Amnesties for illegals
Norm Mineta

120 posted on 10/07/2005 10:58:04 PM PDT by dagnabbit (Vincente Fox's opening line at the Mexico-USA summit meeting: "Bring out the Gimp!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 381-392 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