Will BuSh ever tell the truth?

[barry2952]

I remember distinctly that GWB, when running for President the first time, said that he has great faith but his religion wouldn't factor into his decisions other than as a moral base. Did he lie?

Now he has admittedly picked a Supreme Court justice based on her religious convictions. Has he been truthful with us?

 

[pepperman]

I remember distinctly that GWB, when running for President the first time, said that he has great faith but his religion wouldn't factor into his decisions other than as a moral base. Did he lie?

Now he has admittedly picked a Supreme Court justice based on her religious convictions. Has he been truthful with us?

I don't think so, he has strayed from his promises to much!!!!!!

 

[mach8]

Like all politicians he has a high fecal matter component which has spiked since becoming a lame duck president. The influence of those who bought him and put him in power will now become more overt.

It appears the repubs are doing everything possible to ensure a dem victory in the next election. The repubs have discredited themslves among their base who are now at sea as to who they should support. Berry Goldwater is rolling over in his grave, it's the best chance he's ever had and he can't run.

 

[Calabrio]

He has never said that the reason for nominating Miers was because of her religious background.

What "promises" has he strayed from? Within his power, he's pretty much set out to do everything he said he would. taxes, the court, social security, ect. The only arguable short coming is reluctance to pressure the Congress to control spending.

 

[StraDog]

No ?.

 

[bucketthead]

ok you stated he would use it as moral based she shares his religion so shares his moral base he would let morals affect him wich it did in this matter.............no

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

He has never said that the reason for nominating Miers was because of her religious background.

:bsflag:

Posted on Thu, Oct. 13, 2005

Bush touts Miers’ religious faith; critics call foul

By Deb Riechmann

Associated Press

WASHINGTON – The White House tried Wednesday to patch a growing fissure in the Republican Party over Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers by pointing to her religious beliefs. “Part of Harriet Miers’ life is her religion,” President Bush said.

Bush defended his nomination, saying Miers was highly qualified, a trailblazer in the law in Texas and someone who would interpret the Constitution strictly – something his conservative supporters want evidence to support. He said his advisers’ comments about Miers’ churchgoing were meant to give people a better understanding of his little-known nominee.

“People are interested to know why I picked Harriet Miers,” he said. “They want to know Harriet Miers’ background. They want to know as much as they possibly can before they form opinions. Part of Harriet Miers’ life is her religion.”

That comment further inflamed critics of the nomination who contend Miers’ religion is being used to sell the nominee to the right flank of Bush’s conservative base. They argue that the president is asking them to trust him and blindly support his nomination even though Miers has no judicial record that would offer insight into how she would vote on the high court.

On a radio show broadcast Wednesday, James Dobson, founder of the conservative Focus on the Family, said that before Miers was nominated, deputy White House chief of staff Karl Rove reassured him that she was an “evangelical Christian, that she is from a very conservative church, which is almost universally pro-life.”

Religion was an area the White House carefully avoided in pushing the chief justice nomination of John Roberts just a month ago. During his confirmation hearings, Roberts sought to assure senators that his rulings would be guided by his understanding of the facts of cases, the law and the Constitution, not by his personal views. “My faith and my religious beliefs do not play a role,” said Roberts, who is Catholic.

“The White House and the religious right leaders rallying around the beleaguered nomination of Harriet Miers continue to cite her religious beliefs and the church she attends as reasons to believe she will oppose abortion rights and to bolster support for her among activists on the far right,” said Ralph Neas, director of the liberal People for the American Way. “What’s wrong for John Roberts can’t be right for Harriet Miers.”

Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson, who has endorsed Miers, issued a warning to conservative senators who might be thinking of voting against her.

“They’re going to turn against a Christian who is a conservative picked by a conservative president and they’re going to vote against her for confirmation? Not on your sweet life, if they want to stay in office,” he said.

 

[MonsterMark]

He has never said that the reason for nominating Miers was because of her religious background.

Let's see. Calabrio posts this... and Johnny refutes with this.

“People are interested to know why I picked Harriet Miers,” he said. “They want to know Harriet Miers’ background. They want to know as much as they possibly can before they form opinions. Part of Harriet Miers’ life is her religion.”

Let me requote the part that matters. "Part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion". Ya see, it is that "part" part that really catches my fancy. As in, a piece or portion of who she is is driven by her faith. Now, in the mind of a liberal, that is immediately determined, thru superior intellect, to mean that she was picked solely because she has religious beliefs. Interesting how one can come up with that determination from such a clear, concise statement.

 

[Calabrio]

Thank you Bryan.

You call B.S. and then you post an article that you either failed to read in its entirety, or failed to comprehend?

Here's he's reasons for nominating her, quoted from the article you failed to read:

Bush defended his nomination, saying Miers was highly qualified, a trailblazer in the law in Texas and someone who would interpret the Constitution strictly – something his conservative supporters want evidence to support. He said his advisers’ comments about Miers’ churchgoing were meant to give people a better understanding of his little-known nominee.

No one would nominate someone to the court because of their religious affiliation. That would be foolish and no indication of anything regarding their judicial temprament.

Now, I'll ask again-
what promise has he broken?

 

[raVeneyes]

That would be foolish and no indication of anything regarding their judicial temprament.

Like foolishness and a lack of positive indication of something have stopped the Bush administration before?

Please forgive the liberal side of the room if we're a bit gun shy at this point. Also it appears that the conservatives have a big beef with the nominee because of her lack of judicial experience, so forgive them for knowing their president so well.

 

[MonsterMark]

Please forgive the liberal side of the room if we're a bit gun shy at this point. Also it appears that the conservatives have a big beef with the nominee because of her lack of judicial experience, so forgive them for knowing their president so well.

You're not being gun shy. The left thinks she is a weak candidte is all. On the right, we want to make sure OUR candidate moves this court to the right. We have had enough of the Souters and Ginsbergs, thank you. Has nothing to do with lack of judicial experience. Over half of the Supreme Court justices had no prior bench experience. We want and deserve a CONSERVATIVE. We want and deserve a guaranteed CONSERVATIVE.

 

[Calabrio]

Like foolishness and a lack of positive indication of something have stopped the Bush administration before?

Do you have an example of what you're talking about? Petty dig aside, this is not an administration that takes needless risks.

Please forgive the liberal side of the room if we're a bit gun shy at this point.

Gun shy, is that because so often there is no intellectual defense of liberal position, and after a while they get a little tiresome getting spanked in public so often. It sucks to be the minority party with a death grip on a set of failed ideas.

Also it appears that the conservatives have a big beef with the nominee because of her lack of judicial experience, so forgive them for knowing their president so well.

The argument of this thread is that this woman was nominated because of her religion. You've said absolutely NOTHING to support this argument.
The criticism from the right on this candidate has nothing to do with her religion. You seem to be implying that in your post, but that is not the truth. The criticisms of her are varied, and many of them are valid. But none of them claim that she was chosen because she's an evangelical Christain.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Let's see. Calabrio posts this... and Johnny refutes with this.



Let me requote the part that matters. "Part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion". Ya see, it is that "part" part that really catches my fancy. As in, a piece or portion of who she is is driven by her faith. Now, in the mind of a liberal, that is immediately determined, thru superior intellect, to mean that she was picked solely because she has religious beliefs. Interesting how one can come up with that determination from such a clear, concise statement.

:bsflag: :bsflag: :bsflag:

You guys are so full of your own crap you are choking on it. I love how you like to re-word and disect every statement made by someone less than against the right wall. If religion played NO PART in BuSh's decision to pick her, then WTF was he playing the "religion card" in his statment trying to justify his choice to those on the right??? I don't think anyone here is claiming that "religion" was the ONE AND ONLY reason BuSh chose her, but without a doubt, based on BuSh's OWN STATEMENT, a reasonable person cannot deny that her religion was at least a factor.

But then again I keep forgetting, we rarely deal with reasonable people on the right. Calabrio's insinuation that there is one, and only one (.... "He has never said that the reason for nominating Miers.......") reason for picking someone is both foolish and naive.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Also it appears that the conservatives have a big beef with the nominee because of her lack of judicial experience, so forgive them for knowing their president so well.

:bowrofl: Kinda like how most reasonable people have a beef with our "commander in chief" because of his lack of actual battlefield experience.

 

[Calabrio]

:bowrofl: Kinda like how most reasonable people have a beef with our "commander in chief" because of his lack of actual battlefield experience.

So, how many Presidents do you know of that actually have "battlefield" experience?

 

[MonsterMark]

I don't think anyone here is claiming that "religion" was the ONE AND ONLY reason BuSh chose her, but without a doubt, based on BuSh's OWN STATEMENT, a reasonable person cannot deny that her religion was at least a factor.

OK. She was chosen IN PART because of her religious convictions. Happy?

Actually, it is so obvious as to be transparent. Those of us on the right do not want an atheist on the court. Too bad for those of you on the left. Guess you'll have to wait your turn.

Man, it really takes some work to agree on even the simple stuff.

 

[raVeneyes]

We want and deserve a CONSERVATIVE. We want and deserve a guaranteed CONSERVATIVE.

You may very well *want* a conservative on the supreme court bench, but nothing in the constitution guarantees you representation on the high court, so you do NOT deserve a conservative. The high court should be politically as close to neutral as you can get...and all of the previous choices for the high court have been so...

Also, many judicial decisions fall on both sides of the liberal conservative line because often times their decisions are a matter of law and not politics.

 

[MonsterMark]

You may very well *want* a conservative on the supreme court bench, but nothing in the constitution guarantees you representation on the high court, so you do NOT deserve a conservative. The high court should be politically as close to neutral as you can get...and all of the previous choices for the high court have been so...

Also, many judicial decisions fall on both sides of the liberal conservative line because often times their decisions are a matter of law and not politics.

And your telling me the Supreme Court is not becoming increasingly political! You have to be kidding me right?

Almost all the high court's decisions now fall on the political line. Seems like every decision is 5-4. So all these 5-4 decisions are just a coincidence of judges that can't determine the law? The law is that murky huh.

Guess Bush has it right when he says Americans are sick and tired of all the legislating from the bench. The bench is the last stronghold of the left. Just look at all the asinine decisions coming down from liberal circiut court judges.

And I AM entitled to what I want. My side won. We voted for the guy most likely to do what we wanted. We empowered him by putting him in to office and EXPECT him to carry out our wishes. That is the way the system works. I WANT IT and I EXPECT IT. Nothing less will suffice.

 

[raVeneyes]

And I AM entitled to what I want.

Your words belie your deeper feelings. It's funny how some of the wealthy conservative feel a sense of entitlement or dererving as if they've *done* something.

You are no more entitled or deserving of what you want than anyone else.

 

[MonsterMark]

You are no more entitled or deserving of what you want than anyone else.

I agree on the face value of it. But you are missing my point. Many of us supported Bush in the last election for no other reason than to make sure a Republican was in office for the next Supreme Court nominee. That was the goal. Now the goal is to have our wishes met. A conservative to be named to the court that will seek to uphold the rule of law and to move the court to the right, maybe in over-turning such rulings that we 'legislated' by prior courts. So even though I am yanking your chain, I still want and deserve a conservative named to the Bench. Waaa,waaa,waaa.

 

[raVeneyes]

I agree on the face value of it. But you are missing my point. Many of us supported Bush in the last election for no other reason than to make sure a Republican was in office for the next Supreme Court nominee. That was the goal. Now the goal is to have our wishes met. A conservative to be named to the court that will seek to uphold the rule of law and to move the court to the right, maybe in over-turning such rulings that we 'legislated' by prior courts. So even though I am yanking your chain, I still want and deserve a conservative named to the Bench. Waaa,waaa,waaa.

Well, you've already gotten your conservative named to the bench...actually to the highest seat in the court, so why are you so worried?

 

[MonsterMark]

Well, you've already gotten your conservative named to the bench...actually to the highest seat in the court, so why are you so worried?

Because that was a lateral move, conservative for conservative. Now we want a conservative for a moderate, and then a conservative for a liberal to push the court firmly to the right so we can save this great nation from disintegrating into debauchery.

 

[Cubster]

Democrat = candy ass

 

[Vitas]

I remember distinctly that GWB, when running for President the first time, said that he has great faith but his religion wouldn't factor into his decisions other than as a moral base. Did he lie?

Now he has admittedly picked a Supreme Court justice based on her religious convictions. Has he been truthful with us?

Have you told the truth?

 

[TheDude]

OK. She was chosen IN PART because of her religious convictions. Happy?

Actually, it is so obvious as to be transparent. Those of us on the right do not want an atheist on the court. Too bad for those of you on the left. Guess you'll have to wait your turn.

Man, it really takes some work to agree on even the simple stuff.

So you are admitting you want someone in power that will 'lay the law' so to speak based on their religious convictions?