The worst in American history

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.

 

"ONE" might argue is true....and apparently that "one" is you.

 

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.

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

Ok...

 

Now I have officially heard it all.

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.

 

No, no, no. You said that "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." Again, I ask you...how was the nomination of Ginsberg or should I say Ginsberg while a justice has not upheald the Constitution.

 

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.)

 

Of course.

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.

 

You like to mix and match to make what you believe in OK. Drink some more Kool-Aid and call me in the morning.

"ONE" might argue is true....and apparently that "one" is you.

Not exactly an effective rebuttal of the points that I made.

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

Ok...

 

Now I have officially heard it all.

I am sorry to see that you consider Barack Obama's active role in blocking the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act a laughing matter. I consider infanticide an evil act and Obama opposed legislation that required hospitals to provide all live born babies medical treatment. Evil exists and those who would deprive newborns of medical treatment are evil, in my opinion.

No, no, no. You said that "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." Again, I ask you...how was the nomination of Ginsberg or should I say Ginsberg while a justice has not upheald the Constitution.

I have already answered your question once. Try reading my response again. Ginsburg believes in a "living" Constitution wherein she injects her personal views. She believes in looking beyond the US Constitution and US legal precedents and has even cited foreign documents in her decisions. I do not consider her actions to meet my expectations for SC justices who uphold the Constitution.

 

George W. Bush has not been a perfect president, but he is not a crook. Bush's predecessor was impeached, fined, and disbarred. It's hard to argue that those facts constitute upholding the Constitution, but whatever floats your boat...

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.

You need to research this. There is no law against any kind of stem cell research. Federal laws only prohibit federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Also, with recent breakthroughs, it looks like embryonic stem cells will not be needed. Finally, stem cell research has not produced any usable results yet. Its still promising, but we're a good ways off from any successes. I myself could profit from it.

 

I think the objection to the use of embryos may have even helped stem cell research in other areas. If the researchers had had easy access to embryos, they may not have ventured down other roads to success.

You need to research this. There is no law against any kind of stem cell research. Federal laws only prohibit federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Also, with recent breakthroughs, it looks like embryonic stem cells will not be needed. Finally, stem cell research has not produced any usable results yet. Its still promising, but we're a good ways off from any successes. I myself could profit from it.

 

I think the objection to the use of embryos may have even helped stem cell research in other areas. If the researchers had had easy access to embryos, they may not have ventured down other roads to success.

I would just like to add that most success to date in this field has come through the use of adult stem cells for treatments because the body does not reject its own cells.

Not exactly an effective rebuttal of the points that I made.

I am sorry to see that you consider Barack Obama's active role in blocking the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act a laughing matter. I consider infanticide an evil act and Obama opposed legislation that required hospitals to provide all live born babies medical treatment. Evil exists and those who would deprive newborns of medical treatment are evil, in my opinion.

 

Obama's opposistion to Born Alive, as I understand it, was not based on the probity of the issue itself. As a senator, he was simply opposed to the legal issues of the bill which was not written (as the federal bill was) with an amendment saying that it would not encorach on Roe v. Wade. In fact, Sen. Obama said that had that amendment been on the state legislation he would have voted for it.

 

 

 

I have already answered your question once. Try reading my response again. Ginsburg believes in a "living" Constitution wherein she injects her personal views. She believes in looking beyond the US Constitution and US legal precedents and has even cited foreign documents in her decisions. I do not consider her actions to meet my expectations for SC justices who uphold the Constitution.

 

I am not a huge follower of the Supreme Court but the one incidence I remember that I'm sure is an example of your what youre talking about had to deal with the dealth penalty. In a 5-4 decision the court ruled that the dealth penalty not be used on those who commited their crimes prior to turning 18. Justice Ginsburg and others that supported this bill used the reasoning that the US was out of state with the rest of the world by legally allowing minors to be executed. Justice Scalia said that the ideas of foreign countries should have no place in the interpretation of the United State's Constitution.

 

I always found this particularly interesting because afterall our Constitution is fundamentally based on the thoughts and writings of French political thinker Montesquieu, and the English Magna Carta.

 

George W. Bush has not been a perfect president, but he is not a crook. Bush's predecessor was impeached, fined, and disbarred. It's hard to argue that those facts constitute upholding the Constitution, but whatever floats your boat...

 

Give me a president who would lie about having sexual relations with an intern over a president who would start a war based on false pretenses any day of the week. That would indeed float my boat.

Obama's opposistion to Born Alive, as I understand it, was not based on the probity of the issue itself. As a senator, he was simply opposed to the legal issues of the bill which was not written (as the federal bill was) with an amendment saying that it would not encorach on Roe v. Wade. In fact, Sen. Obama said that had that amendment been on the state legislation he would have voted for it.

I really do not care what Obama's motivation was in opposing a law to require hospitals to provide medical care to babies who survived abortions. He was instrumental in keeping a bill that aimed to prevent infanticide from becoming law. The bill became law only after Obama left the Illinois Senate to become a US Senator. Obama's actions in this matter were reprehensible and I believe that it will eventually become a campaign issue.

I am not a huge follower of the Supreme Court but the one incidence I remember that I'm sure is an example of your what youre talking about had to deal with the dealth penalty. In a 5-4 decision the court ruled that the dealth penalty not be used on those who commited their crimes prior to turning 18. Justice Ginsburg and others that supported this bill used the reasoning that the US was out of state with the rest of the world by legally allowing minors to be executed. Justice Scalia said that the ideas of foreign countries should have no place in the interpretation of the United State's Constitution.

 

I always found this particularly interesting because afterall our Constitution is fundamentally based on the thoughts and writings of French political thinker Montesquieu, and the English Magna Carta.

I agree with Justice Scalia. The Supreme Court should not be considering any foreign legal documents to determine the intent of the US Constitution. When men and women in robes begin inserting their personal views into the law of the land, the cornerstone of an aristocracy has been laid. This nation is a land of laws. American laws.

Give me a president who would lie about having sexual relations with an intern over a president who would start a war based on false pretenses any day of the week. That would indeed float my boat.

Despite all the wild allegations of the left, if Bush had deliberately misled Congress on the Iraq War, he would have already been impeached. The truth is Democrats do not want the American people to know what their party's leaders knew prior to the war. Nor do they want it known how many people in Congress who authorized the war did so without even reading the document containing the administration's case for the war.

 

As for Clinton, he was a perjurer plain and simple. The allegations that you and others have made against Bush are just that - allegations. Clinton is a proven liar.

I really do not care what Obama's motivation was in opposing a law to require hospitals to provide medical care to babies who survived abortions. He was instrumental in keeping a bill that aimed to prevent infanticide from becoming law. The bill became law only after Obama left the Illinois Senate to become a US Senator. Obama's actions in this matter were reprehensible and I believe that it will eventually become a campaign issue.

 

I have a limited understanding of infanticide as a medical issue and procedure - so I will have to study it a bit more before I give my opinion on it's merit. That said, if the Illinois legislature were attempting to encroach on Roe v. Wade with their version of Born Alive than they were wrong to do so and I believe that Obama did the right thing by blocking its passing. He himself admited that he knew it would be passed after the proper changes were made to it. You should like that he wanted those changes, I mean afterall - you support Bush's denial on Embryonic Stem Cell research because of the changes you say it led to.

 

 

I agree with Justice Scalia. The Supreme Court should not be considering any foreign legal documents to determine the intent of the US Constitution. When men and women in robes begin inserting their personal views into the law of the land, the cornerstone of an aristocracy has been laid.

 

Are you kidding me? It's the job of a Supreme Court justice to insert their personal view into the law of the land.

 

 

This nation is a land of laws. American laws.

 

Many of which based on laws of foregin countries and influences...but please, continue...

 

 

Despite all the wild allegations of the left, if Bush had deliberately misled Congress on the Iraq War, he would have already been impeached. The truth is Democrats do not want the American people to know what their party's leaders knew prior to the war. Nor do they want it known how many people in Congress who authorized the war did so without even reading the document containing the administration's case for the war.

 

And the document that was given to Bush concerning Osama bin Laden's plans to attack the World Trade Center....I guess a democrat should have made sure he had read it?

 

 

As for Clinton, he was a perjurer plain and simple. The allegations that you and others have made against Bush are just that - allegations. Clinton is a proven liar.

 

Bush is more than just an alleged liar. He is not even very good at bluffing.

 

Bush said in an interview that he would withdraw American forces from Iraq if the new government asked him to do so, but that he expected Iraq's first democratically elected leaders would want the troops to remain as helpers, not as occupiers. . . . But asked if, as a matter of principle, the United States would pull out of Iraq at the request of a new government, he said: "Absolutely. This is a sovereign government. They're on their feet."

 

Eighty two Iraqi lawmakers from across the political spectrum have pressed for the withdrawal of the US-led occupation troops from their country. The Shiite, Kurdish, Sunni Arab, Christian and communist legislators made the call in a letter sent by Falah Hassan Shanshal of the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA), the largest bloc in parliament, to speaker Hajem Al-Hassani, reported Agence France-Presse (AFP). “We have asked in several sessions for occupation troops to withdraw. Our request was ignored,” read the latter, made public on Sunday, June 19.

I have a limited understanding of infanticide as a medical issue and procedure - so I will have to study it a bit more before I give my opinion on it's merit.

Infanticide is not a medical procedure - it is the intentional killing of a human infant.

Are you kidding me? It's the job of a Supreme Court justice to insert their personal view into the law of the land.

No...it isn't. I hope you are not applying to law school.

Many of which based on laws of foregin countries and influences...but please, continue...

The foreign influences on the US Constitution are irrelevant, as are the religious influences on it. Nothing in our Constitution remotely suggests that our Supreme Court should consult foreign legal documents to interpret the US Constitution.

And the document that was given to Bush concerning Osama bin Laden's plans to attack the World Trade Center....I guess a democrat should have made sure he had read it?

Which document might that be? My understanding is that there was no specific information (i. e., "actionable intelligence") given to Bush regarding the attacks. An FBI agent expressed concern that the Islamo-fascists were learning to fly planes but were not interested in learning to land them. The agent's report was not passed up the chain of command to President Bush.

 

What we do know for a fact is that Bush's predecessor passed on opportunities to take Bin Laden into custody before 9/11. What we do not know is what was in the classified documents that Clinton National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, stole from the National Archives and destroyed immediately before the 9/11 Commission's public hearings.

 

If Bush is indeed hiding information about the intelligence that was available before the Twin Tower attacks, then it might explain why the Bush Justice Department gave Berger only a slap on the wrist for his crime. Maybe Berger did some housecleaning for Bush while he was tying up loose ends for Bill Clinton.

 

Otherwise, I am at a loss to explain how Berger ended up advising Hillary's campaign on foreign policy. Berger and whoever was pulling his strings when he destroyed classified documents should be in prison - whether that was Clinton, Bush, or both of them.

 

Bush said in an interview that he would withdraw American forces from Iraq if the new government asked him to do so, but that he expected Iraq's first democratically elected leaders would want the troops to remain as helpers, not as occupiers. . . . But asked if, as a matter of principle, the United States would pull out of Iraq at the request of a new government, he said: "Absolutely. This is a sovereign government. They're on their feet."

 

Originally Posted

Eighty two Iraqi lawmakers from across the political spectrum have pressed for the withdrawal of the US-led occupation troops from their country. The Shiite, Kurdish, Sunni Arab, Christian and communist legislators made the call in a letter sent by Falah Hassan Shanshal of the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA), the largest bloc in parliament, to speaker Hajem Al-Hassani, reported Agence France-Presse (AFP). “We have asked in several sessions for occupation troops to withdraw. Our request was ignored,” read the latter, made public on Sunday, June 19.

The Iraqi Parliament includes 275 members. So, do you believe that Bush should have called the troops home based on a letter signed by 82 of them? Should Bush ignore the wishes of Iraq's executive branch and the wishes of the majority of the Iraqi legislature? That is not my understanding of how a democracy is supposed to work.

Infanticide is not a medical procedure - it is the intentional killing of a human infant.

 

I was confusing it with Partial-birth abortion.

 

No...it isn't. I hope you are not applying to law school.

 

Riddle me this, Batman. How exactly is a supreme court justice going to "interpret" the law of the land without applying their own personal view of it. I think you may be misunderstanding me. I am not saying that if Justice A does not agree with Abortion that he should take that into account when attempting to overturn Roe v. Wade...but if Justice B's personal view is that there is something unconstitutional within a certain argument - they are allowed to freely consult any means of commentary that they wish. For example, a judge whose "personal view" is that allowing a minor to suffer the dealth penalty is an example of cruel and unusual punishment.

 

 

The foreign influences on the US Constitution are irrelevant, as are the religious influences on it. Nothing in our Constitution remotely suggests that our Supreme Court should consult foreign legal documents to interpret the US Constitution.

 

Nothing says that they should. Nothing says that she should not.

 

Which document might that be? My understanding is that there was no specific information (i. e., "actionable intelligence") given to Bush regarding the attacks. An FBI agent expressed concern that the Islamo-fascists were learning to fly planes but were not interested in learning to land them. The agent's report was not passed up the chain of command to President Bush.

 

On August 6, 2001 President Bush's daily briefing was titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in the US." Within the first paragaph of the information released (of course the white house did not reveal it all because of "Security" concerns) it states "that [bin Laden and his] followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America."

 

 

What we do know for a fact is that Bush's predecessor passed on opportunities to take Bin Laden into custody before 9/11. What we do not know is what was in the classified documents that Clinton National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, stole from the National Archives and destroyed immediately before the 9/11 Commission's public hearings.

 

Clinton may have passed on taking Osama bin Laden. Bush's father passed on killing Saddam. It's easy to shift blame all over the place. Too bad this thread is about George W. Bush. The guy who started the war in Iraq on false pretenses and could have used those resources to find and capture Osama bin Laden - the guy who is responsible for 9/11.

 

If Bush is indeed hiding information about the intelligence that was available before the Twin Tower attacks, then it might explain why the Bush Justice Department gave Berger only a slap on the wrist for his crime. Maybe Berger did some housecleaning for Bush while he was tying up loose ends for Bill Clinton.

 

Otherwise, I am at a loss to explain how Berger ended up advising Hillary's campaign on foreign policy. Berger and whoever was pulling his strings when he destroyed classified documents should be in prison - whether that was Clinton, Bush, or both of them.

 

 

I have to plead ignorance on this Berger guy. I don't remember him. If he destroyed governnt documents to protect someone - he should be in prison right along side Scooter Libby.

 

 

 

The Iraqi Parliament includes 275 members. So, do you believe that Bush should have called the troops home based on a letter signed by 82 of them? Should Bush ignore the wishes of Iraq's executive branch and the wishes of the majority of the Iraqi legislature? That is not my understanding of how a democracy is supposed to work.

 

How about the citizens of Iraq?

 

A new poll of the Iraqi public finds that a large majority of Iraqis think the US plans to maintain bases in Iraq permanently, even if the newly elected government asks the US to leave. A large majority favors setting a timeline for the withdrawal of US forces, though this majority divides over whether the timeline should be over a period of six months or two years. Nearly half of Iraqis approve of attacks on US-led forces—including nine out of 10 Sunnis. Most Iraqis believe that many aspects of their lives will improve once the US-led forces leave

 

Or citizens of America?

 

An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and more than one in four say the troops should leave immediately, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows.

 

 

 

 

As for Bush lying...

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/mar2003/bush-m20.shtml

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 would pick Clinton, too. To play golf with.

I would pick Clinton, too. To play golf with.

 

Understandable. Bush would get to about the 8th hole and then decide to drop everything and go to a different golf course. After we get there, he'd have no idea how to get back and would just stay there while all the club members begged him to leave.

 

 

What clever juxtaposistion.

Understandable. Bush would get to about the 8th hole and then decide to drop everything and go to a different golf course. After we get there, he'd have no idea how to get back and would just stay there while all the club members begged him to leave.

 

 

What clever juxtaposistion.

 

Actually, I would just love a chance to have him explain why he feels oral sex is not sex, how a partially born baby does not deserve protection as a life and why he feels the need to continually treat his family with such disregard by lying and cheating on them.

Actually, I would just love a chance to have him explain why he feels oral sex is not sex, how a partially born baby does not deserve protection as a life and why he feels the need to continually treat his family with such disregard by lying and cheating on them.

 

That sounds more interesting than what Bush could explain to me: why are still discussing the differences between oral sex and sex, why losing lives through opposing stem cell research is any better than giving a woman a right to choose how to operate her own body, and why he feels the need to continually treat the American people with such disregard by lying and cheating on them.