<p>xiggi, you enjoy playing Battleship. Time to put away childish things.</p>
<p>NMD, the feeling is mutual. </p>
<p>I also enjoy the discussions since they force me to try to understand opposing views that, very often, have so much merit that I have to admit -privately- to be wrong. :)</p>
<p>“xiggi, you enjoy playing Battleship. Time to put away childish things.”</p>
<p>Penny, how did you know that? Here is my home page: </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.superkids.com/aweb/tools/logic/bship/[/url]”>http://www.superkids.com/aweb/tools/logic/bship/</a></p>
<p>
<a href=“http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20051004/JUDGE04/TPInternational/Americas[/url]”>http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20051004/JUDGE04/TPInternational/Americas</a></p>
<p>Did Bush pick her because he is politically weakened or do you think she will be rejected and open the way for a neanderthal? </p>
<p>Do the Bush supporters want to argue that she is as qualified as Sandra Day O’Connor.</p>
<p>Does Bush understand the concept of excellence?</p>
<p>Oh, I think Bush understands the concept of excellence quite well. He also recognizes that excellence is not what the Democrats are after, but ideological surrender. Part of the immense frustration on the Right stems from the fact that there is a fantastically excellent farm team that’s been built up over the years. But ideology trumps excellence in this environment, and I suspect the the president is aware that his squishy nominal majority in the Senate isn’t willing to go to the mat on the issue. Judiciary Chair Spector made a point of saying publicly that the next nominee would have to be a “moderate,” which ruled out the incredible candidates waiting in the wings–Luttig, McConnell, Owens, and my favorite, Janice Rogers Brown. The Dems have reaped what they have sown. Now they get the president’s personal attorney, a born-again Christian with no history for them to dig through and distort. What remains to be seen is whether or not conservative senators will allow her to be confirmed. Someone compared me to Ann Coulter earlier…I heard her this afternoon, and I’ve never, ever heard her speak as viciously of another Republican as she spoke of Harriet Miers. George Will seems to have a column coming out tomorrow that may urge conservative to vote against her. I’m still not sure what the plan is. But if Miers isn’t confirmed, we will get a very brilliant, well educated, well credentialed “neanderthal,” as you choose to call us.</p>
<p>“George Will seems to have a column coming out tomorrow that may urge conservative to vote against her.”</p>
<p>Isn’t George Will typically very reasonable? I really like his writing.</p>
<p>Weenie,</p>
<p>That was a little out of line. </p>
<p>How ignorant do you think I am? Do you think that all conservatives automatically follow the Bush administration? Isn’t that like saying that all liberals follow Michael Moore? Do you think that I’m so stupid that I am unaware of how these “privileges” (hum… the same ones that men have, except when men have them, they aren’t privileges) came about? </p>
<p>As I said, uncalled for, Weenie.</p>
<p>PS - I don’t need nor want a lecture; I don’t need, nor want, to be patronized. Funny how you extol the “privileges” that the liberal movement brings upon me… but then patronize away at a woman who dares to think differently than other women. </p>
<p>My big conservative thing is that I love the South and hate the sexual revolution. Worst thing to happen to women. We went from being chattel of one man to being the whores of all men.</p>
<p>ariesathena, I don’t agree with you,
</p>
<p>I forgot, Driver, you thought FEMA was run excellently, and that the horse show guy was highly qualified, and that is just one example.</p>
<p>Do you think that Harriet Miers is as qualified as Sandra Day O’Connor? I don’t.</p>
<p>
I said no such thing, but tossing out canards is certainly less work than responding with substance. </p>
<p>Here’s a Cliff Notes version of what I said above regarding qualifications. There are many people available to replace O’Connor who are, on paper, far more qualified than she was when she was appointed. These same are far more qualified, on paper, than Miers. However, Democrats have made it clear that they aren’t concerned with qualifications, but with ideological litmus tests. Having shot down so many exceedingly well qualified individuals in the past, they now get nominees who have little in the way of written record to examine and distort, including this most recent one, whose resume is clearly less impressive than the other candidates who have been waiting in the wings–candidates whom the Democrats had pledged to filibuster.</p>
<p>We’ll have to agree to disagree. </p>
<p>I would suggest, however, that you may not understand how young men (esp. in the Northeast) treat the women they date. Sex is expected - “it’s a normal part of every healthy relationship.” Never mind that a relationship may not even be exclusive - sex is expected, and expected quickly. There is absolutely no thought that sex comes with emotions. I’ve had men say to me things like, “why won’t you have sex?.. Oh, don’t worry about getting pregnant, you can just have an abortion.”</p>
<p>Many young women are expected to be the whores of any man they date. So little expectation of morality - from either gender. No expectation that it’s okay to do the right thing by your psyche. Thank you, sexual revolution.</p>
<p>Wow, Aries. that is sad. I think my daughter knows different young men than you do. She has always been treated with respect and kindness. I wonder if different schools tend toward different attitudes, or if she’s just been lucky.</p>
<p>I don’t think all young men are in a rush to bed down every girl in town, and I don’t think that a young woman or an old one for that matter, who enjoys sex is a whore. I don’t even think that sex is immoral. </p>
<p>The sexual revolution, in my opinion, allowed women to enjoy sex without being judged by others as whores. If you or your daughter or female friends or relatives don’t want to have sex, I would defend your rights. If others want to have it and they are adults…I don’t have a problem with that either, albiet I would reccommend that they take some precautions against disease and unwanted pregnancy.
Back to the topic,<br>
</a></p>
<p>Read Hamilton in the Federalist Papers on this very topic:</p>
<p>If qualifications for the court are debatable, one disqualification has long been recognized. Though Alexander Hamilton generally encouraged deference to a president’s choice, he stressed that the Senate should reject nominees who are the product of cronyism. Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers that a president should be “ashamed and afraid to bring forward … candidates who had no other merit than that … of being … personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure.”</p>
<p>well well well</p>
<p>Ariesathena:
Off-topic, but you’re scaring me here. I have two D’s, one an undergrad and the other in grad school. Maybe I should <em>strongly</em> suggest both of them take up kick-boxing …</p>
<p>Sigh. It’s tough being a parent here, when you
a) grew up halfway around the world,
b) a generation earlier,
c) didn’t date anyone in high school,
d) dated only one girl in college, and wound up marrying her 
.</p>
<p>ariesathena,</p>
<p>The hardest of the hard and fast rules of neo-liberalism are </p>
<p>-Rule #1. ‘sex’ is above critique; meaning, all and any [protected?] sexual activity is good and by extension </p>
<p>-Rule #2. those that do not bow to rule #1 (all consensual sex is good) are intentionally and stubbornly not leading the ‘good’ life, as defined in rule #1.You need to understand that </p>
<p>-Rule #3. you have been “liberated”–now get with the program and start behaving as if you appreciate it.</p>
<p>Woodwork</p>
<p>Surely you are kidding, equating “neo-liberalism” with sex?</p>
<p>I think Bush believes having his personal lawyer in the highest court is going to come in very handy when some of the nice folks in his administration are indicted for conspiracy, fraud, money laundering, etc. </p>
<p>I thought these guys didn’t like trial lawyers.</p>
<p>I would have looked for Ted Olsen…or even Hillary Clinton to get her out of the way…for good.</p>
<p>Newmassdad</p>
<p>I was responding to the following posts by ariesathena and MrB:</p>
<p>Ariesathena:
and
</p>
<p>And, most specifically
MrB:
</p>
<p>That we might be a point where someone needs to suggest that I would defend your rights not to have to engage in a sex-act on a date, or to believe that sexual abstinence (on occasion) is something like a civil-right to be defended, rather than an absolute moral obligation, is a great indication of what kind of sexual revolution we have, in practice, had.</p>
<p>It makes one wonder where the line lies between date-rape and needing to make reference to your civil-right and those who would defend it, in order to not have to sexually oblige the passions of the one youve spent the evening with.</p>
<p>There have been numerous other threads to this end I dont recall anyone of them being argued by conservatives, or even the curiously titled neo-conservatives, I assumed this was part of a liberal outlook stemming from the 60s & 70s and identified it as such.</p>