Posted on 10/28/2005 4:30:00 AM PDT by linkinpunk
Edited on 10/28/2005 6:49:30 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
"Deacon" sinkspur,
Yes, putin the murderer is going to hell. Just like Stalin, Lenin, Mao, and Hitler, etc are there right now.
Of course with your liberal tendencies-- of wanting to liberalize the catholic church with birth control issues and communion to pro-abort politicians, along with the TAT program--- you'd probably lobby god not to put these men in hell.
Of course I can stand on my own but we both like a laugh, which is why we ping each other to your comments.
Now, please tell us why a "Deacon" would advocate violence against fellow freepers regarding those opposed to Miers? What are you going to say now, phony?
--
"I want to bang their heads on a concrete wall until all the **** they've been using for brains oozes out."
Here, boys. This is how all of us who want to give Miers a hearing feel about you.
I think one or two whacks against the wall ought to do it.
36 posted on 10/21/2005 5:46:10 PM CDT by sinkspur
Well, you don't know this. You can hope it, or wish for it, or assume it. But nobody knows who's in hell except those who are there and God Himself.
Did you read the article at the top of the thread from which that post was taken?
It's hyperbole.
You really do need to lighten up. You are a retread; I just can't quite my finger on your previous incarnation.
But, keep talking. I'm getting closer.
"You really do need to lighten up."
I dont advocate violence against freepers. You do, while telling others to "lighten up" and "follow the manners that your mother taught you".
Typical leftwing feces-smearing. There is no principle which weighs against the right of the people to be heard. There is indeed a Constitutional principle which says the Senate has a subordinate role, not a pre-emptive one via filibustering, in the selection of nominees.
As usual, the liberal pantload tries to distort the issue so as to deny the people their right to seek redress of grievances.
No, they are arguing that she withdrew because of pressure. That is patently not true. Like I said before, the process ended her nomination. If the ex priv barrier can be overcome, she would have still been a nominee.
That speech isn't a smoking gun. I'm pretty sure the President knows about it and knows her true leaning. I see no evidence of liberalism or activism. Then again, I didn't see evidence of a judicial originalist mindset either. If all the evidence were put into a court of law and Miers was being tried for a crime, it would be declared a mistrial.
Has E.J. Dionne ever been right about anything? Don't answer, that was a rhetorical question.
All I had to do was see who the author was and I knew it would be a BS article..
Democrats aren't regretting her withdrawal in the least. Like they'd trust "Bushchimpy McHitler" to nominate a left wing moron for the court. I don't sense ANY disappointment on her withdrawal form the left. In fact, they think they got a progpaganda tool, that the "rabid right" Borked her. They couldn't be more wrong and we should prove it to them. Miers is useful to them as a tool to bash us, not as a fellow traveler for the Court.
A lot of people trusted PRes. Reagan and Washington. That turned out real well. they won bit by bit. We'll win the same way. Without foothold politicians like the Pres, Sen Cornyn, Santorum, DeLAy, Rep. Sensenbrenner, Tancredo, Paul etc, we can't put in increasingly conservative politicians. Besides, your biggest opponent to true conservative candidates isn't the GOP, its the voters. Any one to the right of the Pres probably scares a lot of people. We have a lot of work to do to make the populace more conservative.
BTW, those quotes you cite...
AIN"T MINNNNNNNNEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I posted a conversation! Now please everyone stop assuming I'M POSTER 222222222222222!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Or 1 for that matter...
From polipundit:
Poster 1: Like many have posted above, I believe NOW is the time to rally the Republican Party and all other Conservatives by nominating someone we can rally around!
Poster 2: Sorry…I am not in a mood to rally at the moment. I thought my party meant it when they cried for years that EVERY nominee deserves an up or down vote. What I learned over the past several weeks is that for the most part we are hypocrites and I want NOTHING to do with that way of thinking.
I remain firm behind the President as I have been all along. I have no time nor inclination to to stand around those who have been so nasty in their judgement of HM. Color me disillusioned, disappointed, and utterly discouraged. I will not be doing any rallying any time soon. You guys may have won the battle but when it comes time to work hard in 2006 and 2008 you lost. you can count me out along with many of us ‘conservatives” in So Cal. I know I am far from being alone in my position, sadly.
Good luck to you all in the next SCOTUS war. I am sitting it out.
*****DISCLAIMER
IMO, I'd say the President is a conswervative but more in the Hamiltonian/big government sense. Hamilton may be for a strong federal government but he wouldn't tolerate any communist or treasonous shenanigans and any attempt to enslave the people would be dealt with harshly. He's a patriot through and through.
Then again, it seems to be what a lot of Americans wanted, a courageous, decent leader who won't take away the entitlements or institutions they grew up with. Do I think that's a good thing? Not in a million years. But, this Presidency is a step in the rght direction to get everything we want back. After this we keep sending more and more conservatives into power until we have not Bush III, or Reagan II, but Washington II as POTUS.
Two important points to keep in mind.
1) RINOs, nonconservatives, and moderate conservatives are put into power by a vast and diverrse base of Republicans ranging from Christopher Hitchens liberals to Buchananites. But in the middle is where the most people are. Our job is to bring the middle to the right or we won't see conservatives any time soon.
2) We got to this point via incrementalism. We will get back to where we started the same way.
The disclaimer is meant for everyone, not just you.
yah right.
If E.J. Dionne sez it, it must be true...
NOT!
Re-read that speech (1993 Executive Women's club, in the Wash Post. Wed., Oct. 26) and ask yourself if you could say those things with a straight face.
Ask yourself if you could publically offer praise to Barbara Streisand (and that other handful of far left liberal women) as an example of good American values.
Harriet, I'm sure, changed somewhat when she became a serious Christian (in 1989 ?? she said), but it takes years to absorb some of the real conservative values so ingrained in originalist jurists.
Also, and this is petty, so forgive me, but I find myself somewhat leery of single people who've never married or had children, whether male of female.
There's something about the long experience of raising a family which ingrains one with the type of conservative values needed in America.
In fairness, I think "Is she qualified to be a Supreme Court justice?" is a legitimate litmus test.
I totally agree. I said at the outset that Miers was more than likely a stealth nominee to Bush. When he saw her paper trail, especially her 1993 speech, he must have realized that he didn't really know her as well as he thought he did and ASKED her to withdraw her name. And she gracefully did.
I read it. Over and over. I remained unimpressed.
Would I endorse BlaBla knowing what I know now? Hell no. But who's to say Miers know that she's a stupid whacko lib? Five years ago, I sure as hell didn't. You ask some people in this country what party is George Bush and they say Democrat. More importantly, Rummy throws around a quote coined originally by Al Capone. I love that phrase "Such good fortune for leaders that people don't think." Does that make me a Nazi? Is Rummy a gangster?
Darth Vader Ginsburg was endorsed by the WSJ. THE WSJ!!!!! No wonder Miers spoke highly of her, one of the most prestigious paper in the country just commended her!
Seriously, who could foresee the WACO BBQ when Janet Draino first got her job as chief Gestapo. Who'd know that the American people were about to be gang raped by the "most ethical administration ever" when that arkansas rapsist took the oath to defile the Constitution? No one saw it coming. Conservatives just thought "Crap, another Dim." not "OMFG."
Thank you for being honest enough to admit that one of your objection may be, well, petty. I heard that the reason she didn't marry is because of her sick mother. She needs to tend to her so she couldn't afford a relationship.
Presence of a family is no real determinant of political ideology. Lots of single unmarried women are conservative. Some happily married couples are liberals, even pro-baby murdering. (Hard to believe but that happens.)
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.