EC-Bills Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 Exactly, this rhetoric crap is annoying. Linky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 So, are you "either with him or against him" in toning down rhetoric? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted July 5, 2005 Author Share Posted July 5, 2005 So, are you "either with him or against him" in toning down rhetoric? 374698[/snapback] Personaly, I would rather it be toned down. Let the man make his choice and then all hell can break loose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 Personaly, I would rather it be toned down. Let the man make his choice and then all hell can break loose. 374704[/snapback] I think that whoever is nominated, the Senate will make slow work of but will eventually approve. They just need 5 Democrats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobblehead Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 But.. but.. but... I gotta hate somebody, how am I gonna do that now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 I think that whoever is nominated, the Senate will make slow work of but will eventually approve. They just need 5 Democrats. 374724[/snapback] I am not sure if I agree with you. The Dems have held their ground with the federal court nominations. I cannot see them losing ground with SC nominations and Frist is too weak to get the nominations pushed through. I see a stalemate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 I am not sure if I agree with you. The Dems have held their ground with the federal court nominations. I cannot see them losing ground with SC nominations and Frist is too weak to get the nominations pushed through. I see a stalemate. 374729[/snapback] There is one thing I can almost promise. No matter who is nominated, that person will be painted as extreme, draconian, fascist, and every other name in the book. They will supposedly be "ultra-uber-conservative". Bush could nominate the ghost of FDR and this would happen. The dems risk overplaying their hand and looking stupid, but they are probably willing to risk this given SDO was in the middle of so many issues and her replacement will be viewed as someone who could tip the "balance" of the court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 There is one thing I can almost promise. No matter who is nominated, that person will be painted as extreme, draconian, fascist, and every other name in the book. They will supposedly be "ultra-uber-conservative". Bush could nominate the ghost of FDR and this would happen. The dems risk overplaying their hand and looking stupid, but they are probably willing to risk this given SDO was in the middle of so many issues and her replacement will be viewed as someone who could tip the "balance" of the court. 374734[/snapback] Not entirely true. The potential Gonzales nomination is getting it from the conservatives, too, for his record on abortion rulings in Texas. From the link... [bush] forcefully defended Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, a prospect criticized by conservatives."Al Gonzales is a great friend of mine," Bush said in a phone interview. "When a friend gets attacked, I don't like it. Conservative groups have criticized Gonzales, who, as a member of the Texas Supreme Court, backed exceptions to a state law requiring teenagers to notify a parent before getting an abortion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 So, are you "either with him or against him" in toning down rhetoric? 374698[/snapback] I was for the rhetoric before I was against it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Tate Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 Exactly, this rhetoric crap is annoying. Linky 374652[/snapback] Yet, the article couldn't help but state "At stake are divisive issues such as abortion rights and affirmative action. Bush, who has said Americans aren't ready to ban abortion, declined to say whether he will name a justice who would vote to outlaw it." Overturning Roe V Wade would not "outlaw" abortion. It would allow states to ban it, or place restrictions on it, should they choose to. I think there would be state laws passed to place restrictions on it (such as late term or parental notification for minors), but are there any states that would ban it outright? Before anyone answers that, please get some data to back it up. Most of what I've seen leads me to believe there might be some state bans, but very few. And while some believe the basis for the decision on Roe V Wade was questionable, it doesn't mean that there isn't an arguable basis elsewhere in the Constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 Yet, the article couldn't help but state "At stake are divisive issues such as abortion rights and affirmative action. Bush, who has said Americans aren't ready to ban abortion, declined to say whether he will name a justice who would vote to outlaw it." Overturning Roe V Wade would not "outlaw" abortion. It would allow states to ban it, or place restrictions on it, should they choose to. I think there would be state laws passed to place restrictions on it (such as late term or parental notification for minors), but are there any states that would ban it outright? Before anyone answers that, please get some data to back it up. Most of what I've seen leads me to believe there might be some state bans, but very few. And while some believe the basis for the decision on Roe V Wade was questionable, it doesn't mean that there isn't an arguable basis elsewhere in the Constitution. 374752[/snapback] Don't tell that to NOW. They're busy hitting the talk shows explaining why Bush's appointee will be able to outlaw abortion immediately, as well as make-up and tank-tops. DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 So, are you "either with him or against him" in toning down rhetoric? 374698[/snapback] The statement "I did not have sex with that woman........" has more relevance to the issue than the statement above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 The statement "I did not have sex with that woman........" has more relevance to the issue than the statement above. 374791[/snapback] NEOCON!! FLIGHTSUIT!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 The statement "I did not have sex with that woman........" has more relevance to the issue than the statement above. 374791[/snapback] Hmmm. We were just enjoying the rhetoric of toning down the rhetoric. But if it would make you feel better, the above is just a lie and doesn't "rise to the level" of rhetoric about rhetoric. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 So, are you "either with him or against him" in toning down rhetoric? 374698[/snapback] Only a Sith deals in absolutes, Obi Wan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 "Al Gonzales is a great friend of mine," Bush said in a phone interview. "When a friend gets attacked, I don't like it." This man is a genius! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 Only a Sith deals in absolutes, Obi Wan. 374817[/snapback] Obi-Wan seemed liked he was dealing in absolutes in ROTJ when he was telling Luke the only way to save the galaxy was to kill his father. Oh well, Lucas must've been too busy listening to proposals for Star Wars PEPSI and MOTOROLA commercials to notice. Guess that's what you'd expect from a guy who decided that Luke & Leia's mom died because she just didn't want to live after giving birth and, by deciding to make SW a political commentary at the last minute, created an analogy where Osama Bin Laden is a jedi. Oops. Still a decent movie if you ignore George's pathetic attempts to have a message. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 Only a Sith deals in absolutes, Obi Wan. 374817[/snapback] Ironically, Anakin was not accepted as a Master on the Supreme Jedi Council. Coincidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rubes Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 Still a decent movie if you ignore George's pathetic attempts to have a message. 374859[/snapback] ...or dialogue of any sort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 ...or dialogue of any sort. 374866[/snapback] I would've said that but I loved the scene with Palpatine and Anakin at the opera (I guess that's what it was) where he's telling him about the history of the Sith. Where was dialogue like that two movies ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts