Meirs
 

Documents Show Supreme Court Nominee's Close Ties to Bush

• A few days later, Ms. Miers wrote to thank the Bushes, saying, "Texas has a very popular governor and first lady!" She recalled a little girl who collected Mr. Bush's autograph and said, "I was struck by the tremendous impact you have on the children whose lives you touch."

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/wu...smiley-015.gif

(Alternative conservative link with same basic message.)

Elevating(?) The Level of the Debate.
 

It was high, but they had been trying logical discourse of a sort with Penske for several days, with much frustration. I just told Spanky to F-off when he said I was talking like a Stalinist fellow traveller.

Penske does a reasonable facsimile of a wounded innocent. After all, nothing he says about the Dems here could or should be taken to heart by those on the Board.

S_A_M

Mindless slavering support
 

Ty just doesn't understand that once the activists have screwed it up, the non-activists have to actively fix it, so that they can then guard it from the activists, who might want to change it back.

Seriously, in terms of smacking down Congress, and sometimes states, the Rehnquist court was rather "active."

S_A_M

Meirs
 

I find the smillie, and the quoted material offensive. What if my child saw the smillie? Would he think it acceptable to comment like that? Is there any way they could be replaced by a link?

DAMN
 

Bilmore makes an appearance and the board goes crazy.

The are endowed by their creator with certain inalieable rights......
 

As pointed out before me, this is the most preposterous attempt to turn something into the other party's fault I have ever read. Penske will probably adopt it as his latest babyjesus battle cry, it is so outlandish.

The Rs have control of every branch of government and it is somehow the decision of the Ds to send too few troops to fight W's war? Were you able it type it in without bursting out laughing? I need to know in order to have an accurate read on the magnitude of your bullshit quotient.

I tend to agree with Gatti's articulated reasons. A finite number of troops (and getting smaller and more stretched by the week), and fear of retribution in the next election from the voting public as a result of the ever-ballooning "fiscal conservative" federal budget.

It's the Ds' fault. Oh, how I laughed. Good times.

The are endowed by their creator with certain inalieable rights......
 

Then he really does deserve to be impeached.

S_A_M

P.S. The bigger problem is more like we didn't have enough to send in much more in the way of ground forces without denuding Korea and leaving the rest of the world largely bare as well. With the Iraqi commitment as it stands, it would take everything we have to fight one other medium-sized commitment.

That's why more allies with more troops would have been a huge help. Wasn't going to happen this time, though.

The are endowed by their creator with certain inalieable rights......
 

The examples are interchangeable. They are they to make the same point. Sometimes killing innocent people is necessary. Liking killing German civilians to get rid of Hitler, or killing innocent American soliders to get rid of Hitler.

There is a massive difference.

Let me ask you this. Do you think there was a difference between Germany killing its own citizens and us killing innocent Germans to overthrow Hitler? The people are still dead.

How is that different than Saddam Hussein and Iraq?

You are assuming that the insurgency has popular support. I don't think it does. I think the majority of the people hate the insurgents in the Sunni areas. And in the Shiite areas they are almost overwhelmingly hated and in the Kurdish areas they have no support.

Saddam killed at least three hundred thousand of his own citizens through direct means, and possibly millions more throught the draining of the swamps.



The argument that we can't afford to be the worlds policeman is an argument I understand. I disagree with it, because I think it is selfish, but it is a practical argument, and my position may be naive.

When you add the people that only think we should act in our own interests to the people that don't think we should shove our values down other peoples throats the result is we stand by when there is genocide. You get Rwanda. I respect the argument that we should only serve our interest more because it is less hypocritical. I can't respect the "we should not impose our values" argument because I find that people are trying to use morality to argue for us to do something that is immoral. They are trying to say it is the right thing to let such evil thrive. I find that line of reasoning abhorrent.

Most Republicans are not Neocons like me. Neocons supported Clinton in Kosovo. Many Republicans didn't. George Will is not a NeoCon and he complained endlessly about Clintons bombing of Serbia. Which, by the way, was another example of where we killed innocent civilians to accomplish the right end.

Clinton's act was courageous because he ignored the "we can't impose our values on the balkan crowd", and the "balkans have always been a mess that can't be fixed and it is naive to do so crowd", and the "it is not in our stragic interest crowd" and the pacifist crowd and he went in and did the right thing.

He said to himself, if not us who? and if not now when? Althought the Serbs did not appreciate the bombing, it was the right thing to do.

The are endowed by their creator with certain inalieable rights......
 

It is considered polite to simply post a "2" when all you're doing is agreeing with some other simpleton's post.

Meirs
 

Since you quoted it, not anymore.

I, too, find the quoted material offensive.

The are endowed by their creator with certain inalieable rights......
 

And Soros, and the NYT, and Rather, and PBS, and Michael Moore, and The Ghost of Wellstone, and . . . . Hey, it was a close election. These things count.

And yet we're paying for bridges and roads and medicare drugs and NCLB and free immigration and the resultant bennies and . . . tons of unneeded shyte on bush's watch. There's more than enough to thrash out to pay the marginal costs of more troops.

Actually, we do. As shown during the Katrina hysteria, we've only called up about - what? - 15%-20% of the available reserves? We've only deployed a minority of the actives? There's plenty more out there, plus you seemingly discount the ability to boost pay and bennies and draw more in. Plus, a draft.

Remember one of Rummy's motivations for this? A larger force is politically unpopular, and so he wanted to be able to do more - to get more and better results - with fewer opportunities for political dissent and hysteria, which translates into fewer troops and costs.

I'll stick with, primarily #1.

Elevating(?) The Level of the Debate.
 

I know he doesn't believe it, but I still love Wonk. Platonically.

Not fair
 

Empire? Sure, territorial conquest leads to bad things. But we want to walk away once people are free. Where has that happened in history? I think it's the lust for land that leads to what you speak of.

And, yeah, evil exists, but that's no reason to let it lead a comfortable life. You seem to be saying, we can't eradicate it, so let's give up. I can't buy into that.

Our power can kill a significant number of people who think they are entitled to ruin and end other people's lives. No, we can't take over the world, but we don't want to. We can just wipe out as many baddies as feasible, and then go home knowing that we've left the good people in a much better position to lead nice lives. I'm willing to go that far.

Basic catchup question
 

Please show me a cite on a Harryette Miers phottoshoppe? There are none. Your side posted pics of her and made fun of her hair and makeup, as if y'all are so beautiful. You leftists accuse me of being up Bush's arse, and yet I came out first against this nomination from a substantive standpoint, and yet you still use your petty puerile PoPD against me, so, in the words of one of the great demo thinkers on this Board, Go. Fuck. Yourself. Hard.

As for our collective opinion I think the vote was 5-2-1 for confirmation.

I'm not looking, I'm not looking, I'm not looking
 

But I'm posting outrage at this which is an article that talks about an insurance company trying to dump group policies for trade associations in California.

Goddamnit, trade association group policies are the only way that some sole proprietors can get health insurance.

Goddamned insurance companies.


I'm not here.

Elevating(?) The Level of the Debate.
 

And I was one of your biggest defenders, on the board and in the off board conversations of the same.

Meirs
 

Just because you are devoid of any respect for the institutions and iconic leaders of this great Nation, doesn't mean everyone has to be so unpatriotic. Harryette Miers is not qualified to be a Supreme, but it is unrelated to her respect for the President, not because of it.

Elevating(?) The Level of the Debate.
 

And why is that hard to believe S_A_M? I don't personalise criticism of W. Even when the lefties (like dimwit shill, Michael Moore) say he is stupid and anyone who votes for him is a stupid religious freak. I know better. I would expect that you (et al) do to. Although some continue to prove me wrong with think skinned, baby's arse soft sensitivities. Perhaps if we all joined hands and sang the Cum-by-ah?

Meirs
 

Cut him a break, he's bitter and projecting.

Basic catchup question
 

Interesting. I distinctly recall seeing on this board a photoshoppe of Harriet with her face superimposed on a peace protestor during a march.

Can't find it now. Odd, that.

The are endowed by their creator with certain inalieable rights......
 

So, if the Left had just stuck with and supported Bush, he could have and would have done Iraq better (troops and resources)?

And Bush and the GOP-controlled Congress would have put the $$ towards troops, weapons, and supplies rather than the various other projects you've named, if only the Dems had let them?

And Rumsfeld's doctrine of military transformation is also politically motivated?

Wow, Bil, I thought these guys were supposed to be principled and have big brass balls. After all, they spent years alternately screwing the Dems in the bunghole and telling the Dems to do it themselves. Was that all a show, were the Dems really so powerful without even knowing it?

Your analysis makes it sound like Iraq effort and the whole Bush administration was fraught with political cowardice and shameless pandering -- at the expense of the lives of brave young Americans.

But y'all put up with that stuff for years just waiting for the ability to reshape the Supreme Court. And he gives you Harriet Miers? A bitter brew, indeed.

S_A_M

Not fair
 

You threatened to kill the president? Yeah, I bet you stay well away from that relativism stuff.

;)

Basic catchup question
 

Wan't me. I wonder if you any of the no personal responsibility moral relativists will be gracious enough to apologise for the lies. Yeah, right.

Elevating(?) The Level of the Debate.
 

If and when I posted something saying that the GOPers are essentially corrupt, immoral murdering nazis who have sold their souls to corporate interests (for instance), I'd expect some of them on the Board to be offended. You apparently would not be. So be it.

If I say W is a chimpanzee (for instance), I would not expect any of you to be [eta: personally] offended

I'm not offended by what you say, because I so rarely take it seriously when you spew out one of the multiple-adjective posts complete with photoshops. It seemed to me that Wonk and Sidd know you better, and actually care about what you think, so they get a bit pissed. I can understand it.

S_A_M

Mindless slavering support
 

I don't think that one can validly misdefine a central term and then use that misdefinition indefinitely to redefine another's argument.

"Activist" originally meant, one willing to go beyond the words of the Constitution in order to rule on what it "ought to" have said, or what it "meant to" say, or what emotions and feelings were hidden in the penumbras and the byways of the heart of the Constitution or some such idiocy. Ty wants to redefine it as, "willing to ignore some precedent". But, when groups of Constitution-rewriting justices have wrought their harm, it's not "activism" to take it all back to the words. If you think that that argument doesn't work, then it's a simple matter if choosing a new word for it. Let's try "honest reader of the C" v. "lying sack of I-wish-I-had-a-penumbra-of-my-own."

The are endowed by their creator with certain inalieable rights......
 

No, you've misinterpreted.

It's the loyal opposition's duty to oppose. No big deal. My original point was simply yhat it's humorous and ironic to now hear the D's complain about low troop levels.

Not fair
 

The interesting thing is, Wonk gets deleted for his post that arguably raised issues under the Federal statute which prohibits threats against the PotUS, et al., and yet not one leftie here will duly criticise Dimwitted Senator Mary Landrieu when, on the public record, she blatantly violates the same statute with a expressly explicit threat against the physical being of the PotUS, which she has the ability to imminently carry out. And repeats the same threat when given the chance to back down.

Imagine, Bilmoure, iyw, if Bush made the same threat against say, Nagin. What result?

I'm not looking, I'm not looking, I'm not looking
 

Hear, hear.

The are endowed by their creator with certain inalieable rights......
 

That is true -- kind of like hearing the Bush admin. using Miers' religious faith to support her nomination.

S_A_M

Elevating(?) The Level of the Debate.
 

Translation: Sidd and Wonk have skins as thin and soft as a newborn (and unaborted) baby's arse, while I, S_A_M, despite my mild leftwing delusionalism, at times, am comfortable engaging in the rough and tumble rhetoric of political discourse

Yes, I essentially agree with that translation. Thanks for weighing in.

The are endowed by their creator with certain inalieable rights......
 

No, no, no. You too? Geez. My point was simply that I luv to see the D's now complaining about too few troops. It's simply one more sign that they consider the average voter to be a dolt with no memory. Do you think these contradictory positions, taken with a view as to "what sounds zippy RIGHT NOW?", actually improve their credibility?

The are endowed by their creator with certain inalieable rights......
 

Interesting how imposing those forces look in the rear mirror.

I'm incredulous that you believe that the Forces of Liberal Evil would've said in 2002 that "well, 120,000 is one thing, but 200k? 300k? Omigod!"

For those on the Left that hated going, they hated going regardless what of what the number was. It was a boatload of people. That you think the Bushies flinched -- because of the Democrats -- by sending 1 boatload instead of the 2 or 3 that we really needed simply makes no sense.

I was thinking more about the sacrifice of blood than the treasure, but I agree with your that Today's GOP has become quite proficient at spending.

Yeah, the draft would've gone over quite well with the American public. See Alt. #2.

So you're saying that we're dictating our military policy by Rummy's desire to avoid political problems? That's rich.

And, if it happens that things DON'T turn out well, the Dems and the MSM are lined up to take the blame for torpedoing what was otherwise really a nifty policy and execution by the Bushies. Bonus!

Not fair
 

With Landrieu, there's that whole "I'm actually too stoopid to accomplish anything I attempt" defense, which, when it's a BARD burden, makes prosecution a waste of time. It's like a diminished capacity defense, but with nicer suits.

The are endowed by their creator with certain inalieable rights......
 

the sacrifice of blood is still more when the Dimwitted President, his wife and minions sit on their collective hands for 8 years. It leads to about 3000 dead. In one day.

And that is not counting the camel he shot in the arse with a cruise missile in our national defence.

For shame.

The are endowed by their creator with certain inalieable rights......
 

Huh. You said:

Followed by:

Now, see, it's not really so much that the Dems' monstrous influence caused Bush to consciously pare back, and keep back, the number of troops as a political calculation, but instead simply that you like to laugh at the Dems as being hypocritical.

Uh huh.

Certainly, that retrenchment is easier to defend. Kudos to you.

DAMN
 

They saw me, and all thought "ooo, low hanging fruit!"

Not fair
 

Too bad that wasn't the rationale the demos have for not criticising the infraction. I could respect that.

[softball] How about speculation on what happens when W makes the same threat against Nagin?[/softball]

DAMN
 

Uhm, tmi dude. I really didn't need that visual.

Kool-Aid Hangover's a bitch
 

Apparently certain parts of NY State are waking to the nightmare of their reality.

From the Auburn, NY Citizen:

Unfortunately, [Hillary] Clinton knew little about the Auburn road project. Instead, the senator kept her statements broad and general, a sure sign that Auburn was little more than a convenient photo opportunity on her way to Seneca Falls.

We'd appreciate it if state and federal politicians saw Auburn as something more than a scheduling convenience on the way to someplace else. Or at least fake it a bit better.



http://tinypic.com/ehzw9e.gif

The are endowed by their creator with certain inalieable rights......
 

Sorry to disappoint you, but it's mostly political reality that keeps anyone from doing completely what they want to do. Do you doubt that? Do you think the Dems, when they were in power, left you ANY take home pay because they were concerned about you? Nope - because they had to compromise.

Most of Bush's actions have involved that political compromise. We're not in Syria right now, mostly because of political compromise. For you to imply that that's not a factor in everything a pres does is either naive or wilfully obtuse.