THEOCRACY WATCH: Miers picked because of her religion - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-12-2005, 05:56 PM   #16
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 09:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
No, he didn't say this.

And to your last question - yes, why not. Or are you automatically operating under the assumption that Bush only picks evangelical Christians. I don't think you want to go down the road of accusing bias with questions like "if Miers were ______, would she be the nominee?"


yes, he did say this:

Quote:
"People are interested to know why I picked Harriet Miers," Bush told reporters at the White House. "Part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion."
i am not "automatically operating under the assumption" that Bush only picks evangelical Christians. he said that he picked her because she was an evangelical Christian, and that he knows her heart.

it wasn't the only reason, but it was a central reason.

and i think we can absolutely say that she wouldn't have been nominated if she were an atheist.

that, and look at Dobson's comments, his insider information that Rove gave him.

just how connected do you need the dots to be?
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-12-2005, 06:00 PM   #17
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 09:47 AM
and the increasingly concerned Concerned Women for America agree with me:



Quote:
Concerned Women for America (CWA) initially responded to President Bush’s nomination of Harriet Miers on October 3 by expressing our cautious optimism and hope that we would be able to support the nomination. This memorandum expresses our assessment of what has transpired since the President made his announcement and of any new information about Miss Miers.


The media are brimming with coverage about Miss Miers’ background and qualifications and the ensuing debate over her nomination. CWA staff members have been heavily involved in evaluating information about Miss Miers and in expressing CWA’s response.

[...]

A qualified nominee for the Supreme Court must have more than intellectual ability and legal competence. It requires a deep knowledge of and experience in constitutional law. That must be coupled with the ability to stand one’s ground as a stalwart and persuasive voice for interpretation of the Constitution faithful to its text and the Founders’ intent. We believe the best evidence of that is a record of having done so.

White House representatives and other supporters of Miss Miers immediately announced that she is an evangelical Christian. There is continual emphasis on her faith and the advantage of having an evangelical Christian on the Supreme Court. We do not doubt Miss Miers’ faith in Christ—we share it.

Like CWA, most of those emphasizing Miss Miers’ faith have resisted any attempt to impose a religious test on any person seeking public office. The Constitution forbids it. We find it patronizing and hypocritical to focus on her faith in order to gain support for Miss Miers.

http://www.cwfa.org/articles/9148/LE...ourt/index.htm
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-12-2005, 06:04 PM   #18
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 06:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




yes, he did say this:



i am not "automatically operating under the assumption" that Bush only picks evangelical Christians. he said that he picked her because she was an evangelical Christian, and that he knows her heart.

it wasn't the only reason, but it was a central reason.

and i think we can absolutely say that she wouldn't have been nominated if she were an atheist.

that, and look at Dobson's comments, his insider information that Rove gave him.

just how connected do you need the dots to be?
Nice snippet of a news source.

It fits your picture of Bush - rather nicely. I guess you can select the dots you want to fit your picture. But the facts, as presented in this article, do not support your case.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-12-2005, 06:05 PM   #19
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 09:47 AM
Quote:
We find it patronizing and hypocritical to focus on her faith in order to gain support for Miss Miers.
Substitute "Miss Miers" with "anti-gay legislation" and you have my opinion of "Concerned Women for America." What a repugnant group.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 10-12-2005, 06:09 PM   #20
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 09:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Nice snippet of a news source.

It fits your picture of Bush - rather nicely. I guess you can select the dots you want to fit your picture. But the facts, as presented in this article, do not support your case.


it's that resolute stubbornness again ... when the CWA women disagree with you, then you're *really* grasping at straws.

why the trumpeting of her evangelical Christianity as if it were a qualification?

why why why?

and you can read the full article via the link at the beginning of the thread.

also: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051012/...NlYwMlJVRPUCUl
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-12-2005, 06:11 PM   #21
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 06:47 AM
If people are asking - the administration is answering.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-12-2005, 06:12 PM   #22
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 09:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
If people are asking - the administration is answering.

and the answer is that one of the reasons they picked her was not only because of her religion, but how she chooses to practice her religion.



(guess who just figured out how to bold?)
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-12-2005, 06:18 PM   #23
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 09:47 AM
I can't believe some 50% of your voters actually thought it fit to put Bush back into office.

Everything else stems from that fact.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 10-12-2005, 06:20 PM   #24
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 09:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
I can't believe some 50% of your voters actually thought it fit to put Bush back into office.

Everything else stems from that fact.
A game show analogy works here. Americans like to think they're smart, but if the questions are too hard, they tune out. They don't like to look dumb.

So they elected someone who makes them look smart, in comparison.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 10-12-2005, 06:42 PM   #25
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 09:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
I can't believe some 50% of your voters actually thought it fit to put Bush back into office.

Everything else stems from that fact.


i just want to be clear that this little American (well, not so little ...) gave everyone ample warning.

ample.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-12-2005, 08:17 PM   #26
The Fly
 
MCF74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 280
Local Time: 02:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by ouizy
This is kind of being taken out of context.

People are NOT asking about her background. The "inner circle" is using her background to CONVINCE conservative hold-outs that her religious (read: conservative pro-life) background will get them what they want in the court.

The fact that Bush admitted this to the media makes him even stupider than her nomination in the first place.

This counrty is going to hell in a handbasket.


Thank you President Monkey.
Ouizy, you have been cracking me up on this thread. Just for kicks, I have also seen Bush referred to as Chimpy and Chimpolean.
__________________
MCF74 is offline  
Old 10-12-2005, 11:18 PM   #27
War Child
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: ann arbor mi
Posts: 935
Local Time: 10:47 AM
I usually get all bent out of shape on this theocracy thing, but I kinda don't feel it's that big a deal here, because *of course* dubya needs to appeal to her religion when he discusses what he knows of her--there's no evidence of a judicial or a constitutional philosophy at all for her! Yeah, in part its code for the conservative base, trust me, she's evangelical! And part of it is a she'll-do-the-right-thing in a vague way, because we have no clue what she'd do at all!
On the one hand it seems an incredibly silly nomination, like bush just punted because he was tired of seeing it on his to-do list, and on the other I'd bet he thought he had a decent chance of having this go through and be successful with minimal trouble for him. I mean, Roberts was lauded as a brilliant stealth nominee, because he had so little official paper trail, so why not repeat that? Disappointed I didn't pick a woman--she's got the prefered genitalia to replace o'connor! Conservatives worried about the issues? "trust me" seemed to work with roberts! brilliant! and she likes me lots and will be another woman looking adoringly into my eyes at dinner parties so, make the announcement boys!

I don't think he's stupid at all and it doesn't really help the left to use that rhetoric. Inarticulate, surely. Anti-intellectual, yep. But he's saavy and ruthless and thus a good pol. The opposition ought to come up with a better general descriptor, imho. He's an arrogant asshole, surely...but that makes it so hard to distinguish him from so many other politicians. But he also is bold--blatantly here challenging the 'rules' we all assume presidents would play by I think, as he does in many other arenas. Can you tell I've been reading Paul Krugman's book? He makes a scary and compelling argument that Bush and his ilk are really being revolutionaries, dumping the usual rules out the window, refusing to accept them as legitimate (his argument inspired by henry kissinger's doctoral dissertation...how scary is that?!) So, yeah, this may be an example of this...he's blatantly claiming he picked her because he knows her heart, knows her 'religion', when in general we deem this inappropriate to consider. And he successfully duped people like me because there's nothing else to consider here so I don't get outraged at his criteria. And then others won't believe that he actually said that, or that he meant that...when he damned well does and doesn't see a thing wrong with it. So, I think I'm left in the scary position of agreeing with ann coulter
maybe he was banking on that being anathema enough to liberals that they'd vote her in to piss off the conservatives...karl rove has had to work harder lately perhaps to earn his supeonaed-ass keep!

cheers...
__________________
ShellBeThere is offline  
Old 10-13-2005, 09:58 AM   #28
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 09:47 AM
^ great post.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-13-2005, 10:15 AM   #29
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 02:47 PM
Since when did anyone's religion make them qualified to be nominated to the Supreme Court?
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 10-13-2005, 10:19 AM   #30
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 09:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by verte76
Since when did anyone's religion make them qualified to be nominated to the Supreme Court?


since the United States became a theocracy in early 2002.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com