UConn James Posted August 5, 2005 Posted August 5, 2005 Yeah for real. I can't believe these a-holes who seemingly try to demonize adoption. !@#$ the pro-choice crowd. 399493[/snapback] Who's demonizing adoption? Roberts has to duck from both sides. A certain fringe element is claiming that b/c he did pro-bono work in a gay-rights case striking down Colorado's anti-gay Amendment 2 in the '90s, (which is something he did not report in his CV) that Roberts must therefore be gay himself. Take a gander in the Free Republic boards. "He went to an all-boys school! He wrestled! He played Peppermint Patty in a production of 'You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown'! He has a 'late-aquired wife'....
Reuben Gant Posted August 5, 2005 Posted August 5, 2005 This man was just nominated to one of the most important positions in the country and announcing it in prime time with his family in attendance was for political reasons? 399478[/snapback] Yes. These decisions are not made lightly. The president asked for and received a rare prime time audience for a nomination to be seen. Backgrounds are checked and advice is given as to what to wear, where to stand, what and how much should be said and what. Also I am sure consideration was given to what the children should wear, anything too casual would make the nominee appear too young, which was probably a concern, the 1950's get up will in all likelyhood never was worn and will never be worn again. I am not cynical about the nominee if that is what you were implying, I think he is a good one, but I have also worked in consulting on political campaigns at the gubernatorial level for both Democrats and Republicans. If we are thinking of this stuff - you can be sure that they are at the presidential level.
Mickey Posted August 5, 2005 Posted August 5, 2005 Think like a liberal.... Bush Bad! Therefore, the ends justify the means 399023[/snapback] Exactly, why that's almost as despicable as, 35 years after the fact, trashing the service record of a combat vet. Almost. Kerry Bad, Bush Good, remember? Really, on a board where comments like "libertard" are yukked about, even after thousands of repetitions (even my dog gets tired of the same food day after day), it cracks me up when you guys make complaints like this. Does it ever dawn on you the hypocrisy of a political faction that snaps up books claiming that every non-conservative in the country is a traitor guilty of treason really has no place complaining about "[fill in the blank]=bad" thinking? I have no problem with mocking the idea that anything Bush must be bad but please, on a board where anything democratic, liberal, progressive, femminist, environmentalist, pacifist, etc. etc. etc is knee jerk bad, doesn't "Bush Bad" fit right in?
Alaska Darin Posted August 5, 2005 Posted August 5, 2005 It's called business as usual, turkey. Nothing at all to see here.
boomerjamhead Posted August 5, 2005 Posted August 5, 2005 Who's demonizing adoption? Roberts has to duck from both sides. A certain fringe element is claiming that b/c he did pro-bono work in a gay-rights case striking down Colorado's anti-gay Amendment 2 in the '90s, (which is something he did not report in his CV) that Roberts must therefore be gay himself. Take a gander in the Free Republic boards. "He went to an all-boys school! He wrestled! He played Peppermint Patty in a production of 'You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown'! He has a 'late-aquired wife'.... 399537[/snapback] You mean the far right is attacking a right leaning moderate? Who would have thought that would have ever happened? No offense to Wacka, but Free Republic can go the way of the horse buggy for all I care. I'm not interested in the blowhard angle from either side. Didn't you know? Adoption infringes on a womans right to choose, and should only be considered as a last resort... Just read a little into the silliness of Gant's post.
Reuben Gant Posted August 5, 2005 Posted August 5, 2005 Didn't you know? Adoption infringes on a womans right to choose, and should only be considered as a last resort... Just read a little into the silliness of Gant's post. 399572[/snapback] I'm pro-life, but if you don't think abortion politics are being played, you're wrong.
boomerjamhead Posted August 5, 2005 Posted August 5, 2005 I'm pro-life, but if you don't think abortion politics are being played, your wrong. 399577[/snapback] I'm not saying that they aren't. Every single nomination until the end of time itself will center around abortion. Sad, but true. That being said, I highly doubt that Roberts was chosen because of his two adopted children. I think it had more to do with his view on the RvW ruling itself (his words - decided wrongly) and his age.
Reuben Gant Posted August 5, 2005 Posted August 5, 2005 That being said, I highly doubt that Roberts was chosen because of his two adopted children. . 399589[/snapback] No, but with any nominee, it is important to be the first to frame the narrative of his life. The good stuff is supposed to get out there. Adopted children are an asset and they were used. Believe it or not I am not trying to make partisan points here.
UConn James Posted August 6, 2005 Posted August 6, 2005 You mean the far right is attacking a right leaning moderate? Who would have thought that would have ever happened? No offense to Wacka, but Free Republic can go the way of the horse buggy for all I care. I'm not interested in the blowhard angle from either side. Didn't you know? Adoption infringes on a womans right to choose, and should only be considered as a last resort... Just read a little into the silliness of Gant's post. 399572[/snapback] There are several GOP senators who have been quoted that if stories of his work on the gay-rights case is correct (and it is), they will not vote to confirm. From an AP article: Smith said Roberts may instead have viewed the case as a broader question, of whether the constitutional guarantee of equal protection prohibited singling out a particular group of people that wouldn't be protected by an anti-discrimination law.... The case involved Amendment 2, a constitutional amendment approved by Colorado voters in 1992 that would have barred laws, ordinances or regulations protecting gays from discrimination by landlords, employers or public agencies such as school districts. I try not to "read into" people's posts. I read what the words say. Reading into things brings in your opinion of what the other person is not saying, so that when you respond to them, you're just responding to your own opinion. It must be exhausting to go thru life like this. RG said the announcement was done in such a way as to promote a positive image, even on a subliminal/unconcious level, for a certain core constituency. I don't doubt it.
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 6, 2005 Posted August 6, 2005 You totally don't get it. That is why the dems keep losing seats. They are dragging his kids into it. I heard they also wanted to investigate his wife! Adoption records are sealed. What "right" does the NYT have to be trying to get sealed records that have nothing to do with his job opened? It's just the Bush/Right is bad mantra. Keep at it. Keep losing. Strange that the National Enquirer has more ethics than the NYT does. 399258[/snapback] In the long run, it is the best thing in the world that the Dems are losing seats.
UConn James Posted August 6, 2005 Posted August 6, 2005 This is another great thing about Wacka. He's always quick to point out where the Dems need to completely change their platform. So helpful! "You need to wear Old Spice Regular scent deodorant, not the Powder Fresh. That's why you're losing seats!"
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 6, 2005 Posted August 6, 2005 This is another great thing about Wacka. He's always quick to point out where the Dems need to completely change their platform. So helpful! "You need to wear Old Spice Regular scent deodorant, not the Powder Fresh. That's why you're losing seats!" 400771[/snapback] Exactly. All I am saying is maybe losing seats is the best thing for 'em. Let the political climate ebb and flow... It is best for us all.
Chilly Posted August 7, 2005 Posted August 7, 2005 You totally don't get it. That is why the dems keep losing seats. They are dragging his kids into it. I heard they also wanted to investigate his wife! Adoption records are sealed. What "right" does the NYT have to be trying to get sealed records that have nothing to do with his job opened? It's just the Bush/Right is bad mantra. Keep at it. Keep losing. Strange that the National Enquirer has more ethics than the NYT does. 399258[/snapback] lolz, he doesn't get it? Mirror!
Bill from NYC Posted August 9, 2005 Posted August 9, 2005 In the long run, it is the best thing in the world that the Dems are losing seats. 400763[/snapback] Would you mind explaining this theory to us? Or, are you just being melodramatic? (Sound familiar?)
Alaska Darin Posted August 9, 2005 Posted August 9, 2005 Would you mind explaining this theory to us? Or, are you just being melodramatic? (Sound familiar?) 402528[/snapback] Because pretty much the only way they can start winning things back is for the Republicans to keep doing what they're doing. The Dems don't have anything to sell and the Repubs are their own worst enemy.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 9, 2005 Posted August 9, 2005 Because pretty much the only way they can start winning things back is for the Republicans to keep doing what they're doing. The Dems don't have anything to sell and the Repubs are their own worst enemy. 402997[/snapback] Of course, that just results in the Democrats being the majority party, and the Republicans having to rely on the Democrats to keep doing what they're doing to get their majority back...and the cycle continues...
Recommended Posts