Posted on 10/27/2005 11:02:09 AM PDT by jdhljc169
He also said this:
"When you know some of the things that I know — that I probably shouldn't know — you will understand why I have said ... that I believe Harriet Miers will be a good justice"
I have no brief against religious leaders. Not at all. I have a brief against people who pretend to know things, but who don't. I have a brief against people who assure others that they have some secret information, then turn around and pretend they never said such a thing.
I do not like Dr. Dobson very much, it's true. But that has nothing to do with his Christianity. It's another matter altogether.
You clearly didn't have (take?) time to read the quotation and the link.
Not admitting you were wrong in slandering Dobson, nor that your problems with him may be personal, and related to his faith.
Shocked! Shocked!
Dan
Looks that way to me.(/s)
Amen!
Is he backtracking or just admitting a mistake? Rhetoric does matter.
"Not admitting you were wrong in slandering Dobson"
Funny. I don't remember slandering Dobson. I said he was for Miers before he was against her. Is that not a correct statement.
As for my dislike for Dr. Dobson, you'll just have to guess the reason for that dislike.
Is reluctance to be held accountable for your words or actions sort of a theme with you? Do you see a relationship to your professed atheism?
Dan
..or as much as one can know someone through their words, deeds, books, speeches and heart.
I have trusted this man of God through years of child rearing and marriage.
He is a good man....and a man who will admit to mistakes.
Most of all, he searches the Word AND his soul for the right answers.....
...Focus on the Family has been a mainstay at our house....
...He has blessed me and mine through many years.
This is true.
Best,
Dr. Dobson is in agreement with Miers stepping down.
Dobson has always been too judgemental as far as I am concerned. He thinks far too highly of himself.
I guess this announcement is for those who give a hoot about what he has to say.
I guess I could have said he's changing his mind.
Backtracking is another word for it.
He would have been better not to give unconditional support before he had more information. If you take his
statement at face value that the 1993 speech changed his mind, he would have been off not giving his unconditional
support. I agree with several posters that he was propably
played by Rove, and took Rove's word about being a conservative.
And why can you cannot understand from considering that the first statement came BEFORE the second?
Exactly. Why then can you not understand that he was for it before he was against it?
When we have limited, or minimal information about something, and you are a public figure (that's my own personal out), that it's a good idea to keep your mouth shut, for fear of pulling a Kerry.
Why do we have to have a supreme court judge who is pro-life? WE should have a supreme court judge who recognizes that Roe V Wade was wrongly ruled because the issue is not raised and resolved in our constitution. Rather, it is an issue that needs to be debated and voted on by the people.
And I think it unwise to make such statements about people whom you might need on your side in the future,
Got to love that picture.
ROTFLMAO>
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.