IMHO, George Bush is a man whose trying to keep our country from becoming war torn such as the middle east. I think he provides our country with a blanket of security and I think its a little disappointing to question the manner in which he provides it.

 

When Im on campus, I see people display their hatred for George Bush but only because its the new fad. They know nothing about what he does provide for his country but since the media seems to dislike Dubya, so will they..and thats sickening. Im not nearly old enough to know so much about politics and world affairs to contend with some of the discussions in this thread, but I believe that although Bush may not be able speak as well as people expect him, I know he keeps me safe from any attacks when I go to bed; and that is what I hold dear.

 

 

Let me guess, you're a big fan of Jack Nicolson in A Few Good Men right?

Let me guess, you're a big fan of Jack Nicolson in A Few Good Men right?

 

Just like poetry...its was the right words in the right order.

Did you feel the same way about George Bush's Administration? Reagan? None of these did much of anything to stop the killing of the unborn. Are they like Clinton in your eyes as well on this issue or do they have a pass?

 

I was in college at those times and didn't care anything but what allowed me and my friends to have a good time.

 

I view the world much different now.

 

I am only commenting on the elections that I have casted votes in which I had some interest in. The first would have been Perot in 1992. In 1988, I voted Dukakis because my parents were Democrat and we always voted Democrat regardless who the candidate was. Done it for generations.

 

1992 I was baptized and began looking at things differently. By 1996, I had a totally different mindset.

 

My parents would probably blame it on Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

I bolded what he has nothing to do with, but here they are again. Tuition, gas, and enegry prices.

Seems most people I know are doing very well also.

 

Can I be your friend?

I am still one of those that believe we not only had a right to be there, we were exorcising a duty.

 

 

I have always wondered:

 

What does it feel like to be in a near nonexistant minority?

I was in college at those times and didn't care anything but what allowed me and my friends to have a good time.

 

I view the world much different now.

 

I am only commenting on the elections that I have casted votes in which I had some interest in. The first would have been Perot in 1992. In 1988, I voted Dukakis because my parents were Democrat and we always voted Democrat regardless who the candidate was. Done it for generations.

 

1992 I was baptized and began looking at things differently. By 1996, I had a totally different mindset.

 

My parents would probably blame it on Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

 

I understand that. Yet it makes it very convenient to ignore the fact that many other presidents besides Clinton acted or did nothing to stop the slaughter. I feel that your pointing out ONLY Clinton is a way to ignore all the many others who have been a party to this regardless of party affiliiation.

I was in college at those times and didn't care anything but what allowed me and my friends to have a good time.

 

I view the world much different now.

 

I am only commenting on the elections that I have casted votes in which I had some interest in. The first would have been Perot in 1992. In 1988, I voted Dukakis because my parents were Democrat and we always voted Democrat regardless who the candidate was. Done it for generations.

 

1992 I was baptized and began looking at things differently. By 1996, I had a totally different mindset.

 

My parents would probably blame it on Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

How many more people could be alive if GW hadn't vetoed the stem cell bill? Apples, oranges, conservatives, liberals, what does it mater to anyone who was the best/worst when like in life nothing gets done except this circular partisan argument going on in this thread as it goes on in Congress and life. Everyone needs to take their beliefs and step back. What they think to be right is not going to be right for me, or someone else. I believe because of the personal infringements brought to my personal freedoms makes GW one of the worst which is where this post started. Is he the Devil I don't think so, was Clinton I don't think so. I just know that if I had a chance to play golf with one of the two I would pick Clinton, I think his stories would be more interesting.

I understand that. Yet it makes it very convenient to ignore the fact that many other presidents besides Clinton acted or did nothing to stop the slaughter. I feel that your pointing out ONLY Clinton is a way to ignore all the many others who have been a party to this regardless of party affiliiation.

Clinton's appointment of abortion advocate Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court has earned Clinton a place at the top of the list of those responsible for the continued slaughter of innocents. As a former litigator for NOW and in house counsel of the ACLU, Clinton appointed Ginsburg to the court with malice of forethought. He knew that she would pass the liberals' abortion litmus test and she has not disappointed.

How many more people could be alive if GW hadn't vetoed the stem cell bill? Apples, oranges, conservatives, liberals, what does it mater to anyone who was the best/worst when like in life nothing gets done except this circular partisan argument going on in this thread as it goes on in Congress and life. Everyone needs to take their beliefs and step back. What they think to be right is not going to be right for me, or someone else. I believe because of the personal infringements brought to my personal freedoms makes GW one of the worst which is where this post started. Is he the Devil I don't think so, was Clinton I don't think so. I just know that if I had a chance to play golf with one of the two I would pick Clinton, I think his stories would be more interesting.

 

Great post, Redcross.

 

The stem cell argument is a great one. If Bush is so set on preserving life - why veto that stem cell bill? He's now picking and choosing who to "perserve" based on partisanship and conservative ideology.

Clinton's appointment of abortion advocate Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court has earned Clinton a place at the top of the list of those responsible for the continued slaughter of innocents. As a former litigator for NOW and in house counsel of the ACLU, Clinton appointed Ginsburg to the court with malice of forethought. He knew that she would pass the liberals' abortion litmus test and she has not disappointed.

 

If you think a president is not going to choose a Supreme Court justice that is going to back their own ideology - than you are simply crazy.

 

Do you think Bush would have selected Samuel Alito and John Roberts if they did not maintain the same kind of Conservative ideology that he does? Speaking of Bush's nominations - his very own choice of Chief Justice - John Roberts, while not saying rather or not he would vote to overturn Roe V. Wade, had this to say on the decision:

 

"Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land.... There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent, as well as Casey."

If you think a president is not going to choose a Supreme Court justice that is going to back their own ideology - than you are simply crazy.

I never said any such thing - in fact I said just the opposite. Clinton knew that he was appointing a far left wing liberal activist to the USSC who would uphold a woman's right to dispose of her unborn baby and she has performed as expected. That was my point.

Do you think Bush would have selected Samuel Alito and John Roberts if they did not maintain the same kind of Conservative ideology that he does?

I expect a president to fulfill his oath of office and uphold the US Constitution and to nominate Supreme Court Justices who will do the same. Former President Clinton did neither, IMO. President Bush has done both.

Speaking of Bush's nominations - his very own choice of Chief Justice - John Roberts, while not saying rather or not he would vote to overturn Roe V. Wade, had this to say on the decision:

You might want to look up the Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision before using this quote to support your position. Casey weakened the Roe decision and what Roberts was saying that he would look to the Constitution and to all precedents when making his decisions and that he would not impose his personal views on US citizens.

 

Conservatives were perfectly satisified with Roberts' response and liberal members of the US Senate's Judiciary Committee apparently did not understand it. The quote that you posted is a good example of what a mismatch of wits occurred when US Senators tried to trip up Chief Justice Roberts during the confirmation hearings.

I never said any such thing - in fact I said just the opposite. Clinton knew that he was appointing a far left wing liberal activist to the USSC who would uphold a woman's right to dispose of her unborn baby and she has performed as expected. That was my point.

I expect a president to fulfill his oath of office and uphold the US Constitution and to nominate Supreme Court Justices who will do the same. Former President Clinton did neither, IMO. President Bush has done both.

You might want to look up the Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision before using this quote to support your position. Casey weakened the Roe decision and what Roberts was saying that he would look to the Constitution and to all precedents when making his decisions and that he would not impose his personal views on US citizens.

 

Conservatives were perfectly satisified with Roberts' response and liberal members of the US Senate's Judiciary Committee apparently did not understand it. The quote that you posted is a good example of what a mismatch of wits occurred when US Senators tried to trip up Chief Justice Roberts during the confirmation hearings.

This to me says you think it is all right to be the morality judge. I don't believe in abortion, but I am not going to force my opinions on someone else who does not feel the same way.

I never said any such thing - in fact I said just the opposite. Clinton knew that he was appointing a far left wing liberal activist to the USSC who would uphold a woman's right to dispose of her unborn baby and she has performed as expected.

 

How is it any better to uphold a woman's right to choose than it is to try to defeat embryonic stem cell research? Bush has denied life too in preventing the life saving that stem cells could do.

 

You're just picking and choosing based on your own neo-conservative ideology.

 

 

That was my point.

 

 

I expect a president to fulfill his oath of office and uphold the US Constitution and to nominate Supreme Court Justices who will do the same. Former President Clinton did neither, IMO. President Bush has done both.

 

That's ludicrous! How did President Clinton not uphold the Constitution by nominating Ginsberg?

 

How is her nomination seperable from the nominations of Alito and Roberts.

 

 

You might want to look up the Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision before using this quote to support your position. Casey weakened the Roe decision and what Roberts was saying that he would look to the Constitution and to all precedents when making his decisions and that he would not impose his personal views on US citizens.

 

Conservatives were perfectly satisified with Roberts' response and liberal members of the US Senate's Judiciary Committee apparently did not understand it. The quote that you posted is a good example of what a mismatch of wits occurred when US Senators tried to trip up Chief Justice Roberts during the confirmation hearings.

 

I am full aware of the Casey decision, Aces. The bottom line is I doubt Roberts would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade and I think his quote offers quite a bit of evidence in that.

This to me says you think it is all right to be the morality judge. I don't believe in abortion, but I am not going to force my opinions on someone else who does not feel the same way.

I also do not believe in murder. Is it fair to impose my opinion regarding murder on others? I think it is.

 

As for embryonic stem cell research, how many people's lives have been saved as a result and how many lives might potentially be saved? My guess it is well below the average of more than 3,000 lives per day that have been lost through abortion since the Roe v. Wade decision.

 

President Bush was right to allow embryonic stem cell research on a limited basis. Now that scientists are beginning to produce embryonic stem cells from ordinary skin cells, Bush's decision looks even better.

How is it any better to uphold a woman's right to choose than it is to try to defeat embryonic stem cell research? Bush has denied life too in preventing the life saving that stem cells could do.

 

You're just picking and choosing based on your own neo-conservative ideology.

No lives have been lost because of President Bush's decision to limit embryonic stem cell research to the existing lines. Research continued, and one might argue that Bush's decision was a catalyst in leading scientists to develop an alternative method for producing embryonic stem cells.

 

BTW, I am not a neo-con, I am a small "l" libertarian. I believe that innocent babies have an inalienable right to be born. Once born, those babies deserve protection from evil politicians like Barack Obama who would deny them medical attention. I am opposed to abortion and I am opposed to infanticide.

 

That's ludicrous! How did President Clinton not uphold the Constitution by nominating Ginsberg?

I stated that Bill Clinton failed to uphold the US Constitution. I never said that his nomination of a left wing lunatic to the Supreme Court violated his oath. As president, Clinton could nominate anybody he wanted to the bench. However, he had no right to lie under oath, use the IRS to persecute personal enemies, request FBI background files on hundreds of Republicans, etc., etc., etc.

 

I am full aware of the Casey decision, Aces. The bottom line is I doubt Roberts would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade and I think his quote offers quite a bit of evidence in that.

Apparently enough of the liberals on the Senate Judiciary Committee agreed with you to allow him to be confirmed.:lol:

 

(I am very happy with John Roberts' performance so far and I do not expect that he will disappoint either President Bush or me in the future.)