I disagree. If he were behaving like a lapdog to the conservative movement, he would have put Edith Jones up or someone like that.

10/4/2005 12:25:29 AM

Edith Jones is just a crazy bitch. She's against legalizing of pornography. I don't need to know anything else. I doubt a lot of conservatives do.

10/4/2005 12:34:23 AM

Quote :

"If you don't support the President -- as you plainly don't -- then it's no surprise that you don't support Miers."

I still supported him till about this morning, the fact that he hasnt changed his message about the war to at the very least try and get people behind it again has been annoying me a little since re-election but this just ensured that I no longer have any reason to support him.

Give me one damn reason any conservative should still support him at this point except out of blind loyalty?

10/4/2005 12:48:32 AM

If you supported him this morning, and now have absolutely no reason to support him anymore, then I'd say some medication would be in order.

10/4/2005 1:02:17 AM

Quote :

"If you supported him this morning, and now have absolutely no reason to support him anymore, then I'd say some medication would be in order."

10/4/2005 1:06:57 AM

^^^

As I said -- if you don't support him, you don't support him. Having any faith in his pick requires that you trust the President; and for your own personal reasons, you simply don't.

Personally, despite all my apoplectic moments with President Bush (the marriage amendment, the Prescription Drug Entitlements, and Katrina) -- I do generally trust the man to make reasonable decisions. Quite obviously he has shown some aptitude with the John Roberts nomination; as I said, now he is taking a more cavalier approach.

If you expect the barrier to trusting his judgement to be a paper trail of conservative resume stains ten miles long, then that is your personal expectation. I wish you the best for it; but frankly, I think it's an awfully high barrier.

And from an ideological perspective, I think the Supreme Court is at its basis a civilian court and not an aristocratic or elite court. Therefore the ability of the President to choose based on his judgement, instead of so-called "qualifications," is a blessing of our system.

[Edited on October 4, 2005 at 1:07 AM. Reason : foo]

10/4/2005 1:07:34 AM

^^Maybe that was worded badly but I was still willing to give him the benefit of doubt and hope this presidency would turn out out positively. Now I pretty much have no reason to do so.

I care about property rights, I care about the commerce clause, I care about the consitution and having a supreme court that actually upholds its principles led by competent, intelligent justices.

And I was willing to keep on giving him the benefit of doubt and hope for the best as long as he upheld his promise to put justices like Thomas and Scalia on the bench who would enforce those principles.

But between this crony with no constitutional law experience being appointed, the way he is handling the war right now, the fact that the ownership society is going nowhere, and putting republicans in a terrible position for the midterm electons definately means that I have no reason to support him anymore.


[Edited on October 4, 2005 at 1:21 AM. Reason : ]

10/4/2005 1:16:35 AM

drink

10/4/2005 8:45:25 AM

Paddling up the nile is getting harder and harder for you guys eh?

10/4/2005 10:27:00 AM

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2005/041005perspective.htm

10/4/2005 11:16:39 AM

Now that Bush fooled the conservatives into reelecting him, he gets to show his true colors. He is nothing more than a northeastern, blue-blooded socialist...much like his dad but far less intelligent. A number of people held their noses and voted for him because of the judiciary. This was a once in a generation opportunity to reverse decades of judicial tyranny. But when it mattered the most, Bush wasn't willing to risk a fight.

10/4/2005 12:50:09 PM

[Edited on October 4, 2005 at 1:00 PM. Reason : - ]

10/4/2005 12:58:43 PM

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1112940,00.html

Quote :

"An indication of her stance on gay rights comes from this questionaire from the Lesbian/Gay Political Coalition of Dallas Miers filled out while running for the Dallas City Council in 1989. In it, she supported full civil rights for gays and lesbians and backed AIDS education programs for the city of Dallas."

Quote :

""We all can be active in some way to address the social issues that foster criminal behavior, such as: lack of self-esteem or hope in some segments of our society, poverty, lack of health care (particularly mental health care), lack of education, and family dysfunction." "

10/4/2005 1:41:55 PM

^i think every republican just shit themselves

10/4/2005 1:42:30 PM

SHE DESERVES AN UP OR DOWN VOTE

10/4/2005 1:45:59 PM

hitler deserves an up or down vote

time for the right to bork someone.

[Edited on October 4, 2005 at 1:48 PM. Reason : -]

10/4/2005 1:47:02 PM

I wonder if Bush knew about that from the start...

10/4/2005 2:00:06 PM

Quote :

"Now that Bush fooled the conservatives into reelecting him, he gets to show his true colors. He is nothing more than a northeastern, blue-blooded socialist...much like his dad but far less intelligent. A number of people held their noses and voted for him because of the judiciary. This was a once in a generation opportunity to reverse decades of judicial tyranny. But when it mattered the most, Bush wasn't willing to risk a fight."

wow, do you really believe that?

10/4/2005 2:04:27 PM

Quote :

"Josh8315: ^i think every republican just shit themselves"

why? Bible-thumpers have argued since 2000 that W was too soft on teh gh3ys himself...

although that would bolster the theory that she's a lesbian and her appointment is a tribute to Cheney

[Edited on October 4, 2005 at 2:07 PM. Reason : ---]

10/4/2005 2:06:08 PM

god forbid that we afford full civil rights to "teh gays!1"

[Edited on October 4, 2005 at 2:10 PM. Reason : s]

10/4/2005 2:10:02 PM

having the state recognize your sick relationship is not "full civil rights". However, gay people are entitled to the same rights as everyone else and should not be discriminated against. If that is what is meant by "full civil rights" I am all for it.

She's a pro life evangelical Christian. And for the 1,000 th time - Justices do not need to be judges before appointment. Rehnquist wasn't.

[Edited on October 4, 2005 at 2:13 PM. Reason : 1000th time]

10/4/2005 2:11:15 PM

you're really cosmopolitan. "sick relationship". heh.

i think two people who want to live a life together deserve the same recognition regardless of what their sexuality is. i think it's sick that we wouldn't allow someone's partner to see them at a hospital in an emergency situation. or that they have to jump through all sorts of hoops to get many of the basic rights married couples take for granted. i think that is "sick."

Quote :

"having the state recognize your sick relationship is not "full civil rights". However, gay people are entitled to the same rights as everyone else and should not be discriminated against. If that is what is meant by "full civil rights" I am all for it."

hm?

[Edited on October 4, 2005 at 2:20 PM. Reason : quote]

10/4/2005 2:14:29 PM

They can live together. It's just that they're not married. They can visit each other in the emergency rooms - make a health care document or something to that effect. It's just that they're not married. Why should they be entitled to the rights of married couples when they're not married?

10/4/2005 2:18:56 PM

Why should they not be allowed to marry? Oh right, because your backwards religion says so.

10/4/2005 2:20:36 PM

they're only not married because you don't want them to be married. why can't they be married?



[Edited on October 4, 2005 at 2:21 PM. Reason : jinx 12345678910]

10/4/2005 2:20:51 PM

They are not married because they are both male or both female - and that goes against the natural definition of marriage which is one male and one female. It has nothing to do with what I want or don't want - it's the natural law.

It is exactly comments like that which fuel the fire. Referring to peoples' religion as "backward" gets them angry and unwilling to give even the littlest bit on this issue. People view this whole thing as an attack on religion - and when something so basic to someone is attacked they stiffen up and fight back.

[Edited on October 4, 2005 at 2:23 PM. Reason : add]

10/4/2005 2:22:55 PM

maybe referring to people's relationships as "sick" do the same damage

10/4/2005 2:24:24 PM

Perhaps so. My bad.

10/4/2005 2:25:07 PM

basically stfu

10/4/2005 2:25:36 PM

7 of the 9 justices from the last full court were Republican nominees...all except Ginsburg and Breyer. Should be a "conservative" court right? Wrong. The pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, pro-affirmative action, anti-property rights, anti-Bill of Rights, socialist agenda of the globalist NWO controllers was implemented.

The republiCON/democRAT, left/right paradigm is a scam designed to make us believe that true opposition parties exist...when in reality both parties are controlled from the top down by the globalist elite implementing the new world order.

[Edited on October 4, 2005 at 2:28 PM. Reason : 3]

10/4/2005 2:26:01 PM

well there are plenty of religions which accept homosexual relationships.

10/4/2005 2:26:32 PM

^^^ No thank you.

^ There are plenty of religions which are inaccurate in some way. With the hundreds if not thousands of Protestant denominations out there - many of them teaching directly contradictory things - we know that not all of them can be 100% right.

10/4/2005 2:28:10 PM

ummmmmmmmmm

didn't you just say something about not attacking other people's religions

"basically stfu"

10/4/2005 2:29:26 PM

No thank you. Pointing out doctrinal errors is not attacking. It is obvious that not all religions can be right. If you have two teachers, and one of them says "Two plus two equals four" and one says "Two plus two does not equal four", then at least one of them must be incorrect. That is not an attack on the teacher, I am not calling one of the teachers names or anything - just stating the objective fact that at least one of them is incorrect.

10/4/2005 2:35:31 PM

then you've just discredited basically every person on earth's religion. including your own. since you have no idea of the validity of your own religion, it doesn't seem justified to base laws off of it.

10/4/2005 2:37:14 PM

Quote :

"natural definition of marriage"

i didn't realize nature had a definition for the invention of man

what is natures definition of the zeppelin?

10/4/2005 2:43:48 PM

I said at least one must be incorrect - I did not say that both must be incorrect. Similarly, I am not saying that all religions are incorrect. There is absolute truth. Whether you call it the Catholic Church or whether you call it Holy Scripture it doesn't really matter - what matters is that there is an objective truth. Nor am I saying that all other religions are completely wrong - just that they are not completely correct.

If you have a teacher, Mrs. Smith, who says "Two plus two equals four" and another teacher Mrs. Green who says "Two plus two does not equal four", then not only is Mrs. Green objectively incorrect, but Mrs. Smith is objectively correct.

^ 10 yard penalty, fallacy of "begging the question".

[Edited on October 4, 2005 at 2:47 PM. Reason : add]

10/4/2005 2:46:08 PM

the point is that by using that line of thinking, "most religions are wrong" in response to the claim that many religions recognize gay marriage, your implication was that if a religion supports gay marriage, it is wrong.

now you can backtrack until you're blue in the face, but that was the intended meaning of your response. we all know it and you know it too.

10/4/2005 2:48:05 PM

If a religion is wrong in recognizing gay "marriage", that does not meant that it is completely wrong about everything. Every church except the Catholic Church maintains some kind of doctrinal error - that does not mean that every church except the Catholic Church is completely wrong on absolutely everything.

If Mrs. Green says "Two plus two does not equal four, but three plus three equals six", then it can be said that Mrs. Green is incorrect in her first statement but correct in her second. Mrs. Green is not a completely depraved person, 100% wrong in everything, she is just incorrect in her first statement.

[Edited on October 4, 2005 at 2:51 PM. Reason : just wrong as to first statement]

10/4/2005 2:51:05 PM

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2005/041005miersrecord.htm

Quote :

"Miers' record begins to fill in Bush pick supported International Criminal Court, homosexual adoptions, women in combat, tax hike World Net Daily | October 4 2005 WASHINGTON – Harriet Miers, President Bush's nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, is on record as supporting the establishment of the International Criminal Court, homosexual adoptions, a major local tax increase and women in combat, WorldNetDaily has learned. While some conservative leaders and organizations were stunned by the appointment, most were not alarmed by the lack of a paper trail by the nominee who has never served as a judge at any level."

[Edited on October 4, 2005 at 2:54 PM. Reason : 1]

10/4/2005 2:53:33 PM

stop molesting little boys

10/4/2005 2:54:13 PM

The gay adoption issue in that article is being misinterpreted. It is taken out of context - these were issues that were discussed by the entire body - it's not like she personally endorsed them. The report is basically saying "Consider these items."

[Edited on October 4, 2005 at 3:03 PM. Reason : not a personal endorsement]

10/4/2005 3:02:24 PM

Did you just assess the veracity of claims made in a prisonplanet article?

10/4/2005 3:04:40 PM

Miers "honored" by the terrorist/anti-free speech/Zionist ADL in 1996...

http://www.jta.org/brknews.asp?id=158921&ref=JTA

Quote :

"Miers nominated for high court Harriet Miers, President Bush’s nominee as associate justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, was honored by the Anti-Defamation League. Miers, Bush’s White House counsel who was nominated Monday to take Sandra Day O’Connor’s seat on the high court, was honored by the ADL’s Dallas office in 1996. Miers, 60, has never been a judge and has not weighed in on most controversial issues, so her political and judicial philosophies are little known."

Well, she'll be more than willing to uphold free speech destroying legislation like the "hate crimes" bill now in Congress that makes it a crime to criticize homosexuals and other "protected" groups.

10/4/2005 3:04:59 PM

Quote :

"Did you just assess the veracity of claims made in a prisonplanet article?"

The prisonplanet "article" is merely a republishing of a world net daily article.

10/4/2005 3:06:18 PM

Quote :

"Every church except the Catholic Church maintains some kind of doctrinal error"

AH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAH

10/4/2005 3:06:19 PM

Quote :

"10 yard penalty, fallacy of "begging the question"."

oh thats funny
i'm being flagged by the guy who said "natural definition of marriage"

10/4/2005 3:09:42 PM

Quote :

"Every church except the Catholic Church maintains some kind of doctrinal error "

Hey, w2k, has the roman church EVER had a "doctrinal error" in it's entire history? Has it ever had a policy that was incorrect or wrong?

It's this kind of thinking that leads to w2k defending child rapist priests of the cult of rome. "I mean, the roman church is perfect, so they can't be wrong here either."

10/4/2005 3:11:47 PM

lemme just recap wolpack2k's message here:

not all religions other than my own are wrong - just the bits i don't agree with.

[Edited on October 4, 2005 at 3:13 PM. Reason : hm]

10/4/2005 3:12:57 PM

^^^^ (and ^) And the award for most helfpul post on TWW goes to... you!

^^ No, the Catholic Church has never had a doctrinal error in her entire history. She may have had policies or disciplines or practices that were wrong - but doctrinal errors? No.

If Mrs. Smith says "Two plus two equals four" and then after school gets into her car and drives home 50 miles over the speed limit, she has a practice that is wrong - but it does not mean that her teaching is wrong.


^ Has nothing to do with me agreeing or disagreeing. It has to do with objective truth. You have the blinders of relativism on - you are a slave of the dictatorship of relativism - in other words, you are the kind who would say to Mrs. Green, "If you believe that two plus two does not equal four, that is fine.. maybe two plus two does not equal four to you. Who am I to correct you?" lol.

[Edited on October 4, 2005 at 3:16 PM. Reason : lol]

10/4/2005 3:13:45 PM