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

Skip to comments.

Misunderestimating The Furor Over Hurricane Harriet
GOPUSA ^ | October 10, 2005 | Chuck Muth

Posted on 10/10/2005 8:55:12 AM PDT by Warhammer

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 221-222 next last
To: Betaille
What a ridiculous ad-hominem attack. I voted Republican in 2002 and for Bush in 2004 (and got many other people at my religious college to vote as well). All I hear from you is the most babyish ad-hominem attacks, which tells me that I've won on the facts and logic. Actually, this is the lowest any Freepers have ever sunk to. I have had many disagreements on many issues with many freepers, and none of them has ever dug as low as criticizing me for having once been a Democrat and having come over to the conservative side. That's not even coherent as an ad-hominem attack.

Well, if you didn't actually contribute thousands of dollars to the DNC and Al Gore, if you are younger than 43 years old and your conversion doesn't correspond with a power grabbing opportunity...you are on more solid conservative ground than Miss Miers.

61 posted on 10/10/2005 9:41:39 AM PDT by Jim_Curtis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

"you have proven yourself to be an ideologue, just like some of the pundits you list. I support Miers because I support Bush."

Then the difference between us seems to be Reasoning vs. Conditioning. Yes, I am a conservative, not a blind follower, and I think that's a good thing, and much stronger than "I support Miers becuase I support Bush".


62 posted on 10/10/2005 9:43:09 AM PDT by Betaille ("Ms. Miers's record is one of supporting a conservative position and then abandoning it." -John Fund)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
You know.... I'm trusting that with the politics as it is and all factors considered.... W has given us the best he felt like he could. We'll eventually see how good it works out.

That being said.... I think at some point the president and whoever he wanted to nominate needed to sit down in a closed room with the dems leadership and say this "if you personal attack this nominee, we will destroy you personally... even if it takes us 20 years". And this nominee if confirmed promises if you personal attack, to make your life and the life of your constitutents miserable, and we feel like as a judge with the swing vote, this nominee can do just that.

63 posted on 10/10/2005 9:44:11 AM PDT by kjam22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

"You need to read the forum. It appears that the "rank and file" conservatives think you guys are elitists and just plain wrong about Harriett Miers."

More opinions eh? When there are no facts on your side, just TRUST ME, then opinions are your best friend. Remind me again how many FR members who have voted in the poll believe as you do about Miers?


64 posted on 10/10/2005 9:44:36 AM PDT by Cautor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

"The real GOP isn't anywhere near as whacked as this place is."

Irony is thy name...


65 posted on 10/10/2005 9:46:16 AM PDT by dakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: LibFreeUSA

Did I say it was the only reason?


66 posted on 10/10/2005 9:46:19 AM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: GarySpFc
All of the hate Mier-mongers need to read, "I was wrong; so please join me in supporting Harriet Miers" by Pukin Dog.

*bump*

I don't like this nomination at all, but the label "hate Mier-monger" is inflammatory misrepresentation.

67 posted on 10/10/2005 9:46:52 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

"The real GOP isn't anywhere near as whacked as this place is"

The real GOP is a vanilla wafer, hiding inside a generic box hidden inside a surplus saltine cracker store. It means nothing and stands for less.


68 posted on 10/10/2005 9:51:29 AM PDT by rbmillerjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: kjam22

In this case, it's not the Democrats; it's the Patsies.


69 posted on 10/10/2005 9:51:37 AM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

The other thing that is true.. is that the WH supported some of these RINO's during their primary elections.


70 posted on 10/10/2005 9:51:49 AM PDT by kjam22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Warhammer
George W is not the Pope. He is not infallible.

Blasphemy! Ban his columns from FR! Traitor! Inside the beltway elitist!

71 posted on 10/10/2005 9:52:26 AM PDT by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kjam22
You know.... I'm trusting that with the politics as it is and all factors considered.... W has given us the best he felt like he could. We'll eventually see how good it works out.

Most of the arguments in defense of the Miers selection would apply to any shopping cart pushing bag lady that Bush could have nominated.

72 posted on 10/10/2005 9:52:49 AM PDT by Jim_Curtis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
For the rest of us, she is a stealth nominee. Not since The Invisible Man has there been so much stealth.

"Stealth" is right. According to Jonah Goldberg on NRO Corner today, "Apparently she hasn't done very much judge vetting and prepping after all." Add that to the growing list, "She's pro-life," "She's evangelical," "She's conservative," of representations to the "base" that just aren't holding water on close examination. Getting the feeling you're being LIED to about this nomination? I sure am.

73 posted on 10/10/2005 9:52:49 AM PDT by Map Kernow ("I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing" ---Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

I agree... you could have brought the patsies into the meeting to. But you know... the WH supported some of these patsies in their primaries.


74 posted on 10/10/2005 9:52:49 AM PDT by kjam22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Betaille
Furthermore, Miers has supported liberal causes (which I never did)

Since you admitted voting GOP in 2002 and 2004, and Gore in 2000, you obviously didn't mention 1992 and 1996, which, I'm sure, means we can assume you voted for Clinton.

Now, if you've never supported liberal causes, the question must be asked: why?

75 posted on 10/10/2005 9:55:20 AM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Map Kernow
I don't know if we're being lied to or not. If we're not.... she'll be possibly the most conservative on the bench. If we are she'll be another Souter.

She has been the president's personal attorney. He either picked her for that because she's a real good attorney, or because she thinks like he does.

76 posted on 10/10/2005 9:56:04 AM PDT by kjam22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Map Kernow
Getting the feeling you're being LIED to about this nomination? I sure am.

I noted that feeling a few days ago. This nomination has negative ramifications that go deep - even if Harriet Miers judicial philosophy is to the right of mine and she is intellectually superior to Thomas and Scalia combined.

Not only does this nomination show weakness, it creates additional weakness. Loss of trust in the president will occur in some fraction of the voters who tend to support the GOP and the President's initiatives.

77 posted on 10/10/2005 9:57:25 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Map Kernow
It doesn't matter what she was talking about, Kitty Kelley's an exposed liar.
78 posted on 10/10/2005 9:57:32 AM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

"you obviously didn't mention 1992 and 1996, which, I'm sure, means we can assume you voted for Clinton."

Since I state in my profile that my FIRST vote was for Gore, it's safe to assume that I did not vote in 1992 or 96 (was too young).

"Now, if you've never supported liberal causes, the question must be asked: why?"

Because I was never a liberal (unlike Miers). I voted Democrat just cuz that's how I grew up and I liked Lieberman alot. I realized I was a conservative during college.


79 posted on 10/10/2005 10:00:00 AM PDT by Betaille ("Ms. Miers's record is one of supporting a conservative position and then abandoning it." -John Fund)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr

The real GOP wins elections, something most of you pitchforkers can't say.


80 posted on 10/10/2005 10:00:39 AM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 221-222 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