Posted on 10/14/2005 4:17:25 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite
LOL. Not fraud, just bad memory, or earning a paycheck. Or something. Anyway, nothing to see here.
BTW, have you seen my "Bush-goggles?" I keep them next to my beer-goggles, but now I can't find the darn things.
You ignorant fool.
We have a winner at #10.
have you sent this to Hugh?
Someone, please explain how it is known that Miers is not the smartest mind to ever join the Court.
Beautiful find! Just BEAUTIFUL!
"People like this RedState poster are just clueless about Hugh's focus, which is to win the war (enduring conservative Republican power), not the battle (a single nomination). So he has moved on to the next question, which is: confirm or not? And for him, the answer is yes, because doing otherwise loses both the battle AND the war."
You're wrong. But you've illlustrated one of the key problems with the republican party for the past couple decades.
For decades the republican party has been telling us that the key to the war is the Supreme Court. We have to get control of the presidency and the senate so we can put real originalist judges to turn the tide on what the liberals have done over the last century.
But now that they have 56 votes in the senate and the presidency, they've nominated a person whose judicial philosphy can only be defended by saying "trust us", the supreme court just isn't that important?
THIS IS WHY WE ARE FIGHTING THE WAR IN THE FIRST PLACE!
When you win battles and get power, YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO USE IT!
"Victory" and "Power" are the means, not the end. If you're in power and you don't do the things you've been promising for decades, then that power is essentially meaningless. Except that you can say "well, at least those other guys aren't in power!"
It seems that Hugh Hewitt is like some freepers here: They are obsessed with the game, the defeating of liberals in elections, and not actually using that power to make sure your agenda that you campaigned on is enacted. Trying to enact the agenda that was promised might be unpopular with some, so you do nothing and make excuses again and again as to why you can't do it. Can't risk losing 'power', you know.
To them "beating the liberals in elections" seem to be their only principle.
Miers has an undergrad degree in mathematics. I'm going to take a stab and suggest that even Scalia got out of college with a wussy degree in the humanities.
You ignorant fool.
I think trubluolyguy got "first in with the negative" at post #10. YMMV, you thin skinned jerk.
Let's have our side stop the personal attacks, and see if the other side does.
but to confirm someone who is such a question mark could ultimately lead to disaster. sometimes a tactical withdrawal is necessary for ultimate victory. for example, the British retreat at Dunkirk was a humiliating withdrawal, but it allowed them to regroup and fight on. on the other hand, the Germans at Stalingrad refused to budge, they hung in there, they said even if it was a mistake to be here we have to stay and fight it out to the end. they didn't know when to cut their losses, regroup, and contonue the fight elsewhere.
Hugh is probably reading this right now and calling us "knuckleheads." He's partially correct. Some folks here *are* knuckleheads.
Huh?
Huh?
Hugh Hewitt ping
Nevertheless, even though Hewitt didn't get the nominee he wanted, he honestly believes it is better to get Miers on the court than to fight this appointment.
I disagree with Hewitt on this point, but I don't hate him for differing in opinion. It's odd to see the glee some posters show in attacking conservatives. Disagreement is okay; we allow it in conservatism.
Nice point. You said it better than I ever could. :)
Terrific compilation - great work and thanks for posting.
LOL!!!
I concur fully with what you have said.
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.