Gonzales supports Roe V. Wade...

[Pennsylvania Jim]

Sure, sure.

Here you go, I hereby "plainly state" that I painted your house last week. Send me a check for $8000.

 

[Debby in Philly]

Originally posted by Pennsylvania Jim:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Debby in Philly:
Can we refrain from the use of ethnic slurs?

I am of solid German heritage, and proud of it. But I am not proud of the Nazis, or those who ran the gas chambers and then claimed that they were "just following orders".

I a like fashion, I am a Christian, and grateful to be one, by God's mercy and grace. But I am not proud of fellow believers who excuse the inaction of our officials to oppose THE KILLING OF 4000 INNOCENT AMERICANS EVERY DAY with the same pathetic excuse of "just following orders". </font>[/QUOTE]Then just say that, and forget the attempt to play Schultz from "Hogan's Heroes."

 

[Pastor Larry]

Why would I send you a check for $8000? That comment was more silly than your original one with bad spelling. At least in this one, you got the spelling right.

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
As for enemy combatants, they have no rights, as far as I am concerned. They do not live under the laws of this land and cannot appeal to those laws to defend their attempts to subvert by illegal means. If they want things to change, then they need to change. So long as American soldiers lives are at risk, necessary means should be used to gain information that may lead to the saving of lives. I cannot understand why the personal comfort and care of people who hate this country and are trying to destroy it are preserved at the risk of the lives of those who are defending it. We certainly need a good dose of common sense and reality.

But the problem here is that people have been determined to be enemy combatants (a new coinage) and deprived of their constitutional rights BEFORE they even received a trial, heard the charges or were allowed to defend themselves. Our government in doing this is subverting its own laws, its own constitution. This is wrong.

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

Originally posted by Debby in Philly:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pennsylvania Jim:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Debby in Philly:
Can we refrain from the use of ethnic slurs?

I am of solid German heritage, and proud of it. But I am not proud of the Nazis, or those who ran the gas chambers and then claimed that they were "just following orders".

I a like fashion, I am a Christian, and grateful to be one, by God's mercy and grace. But I am not proud of fellow believers who excuse the inaction of our officials to oppose THE KILLING OF 4000 INNOCENT AMERICANS EVERY DAY with the same pathetic excuse of "just following orders". </font>[/QUOTE]Then just say that, and forget the attempt to play Schultz from "Hogan's Heroes." </font>[/QUOTE]Where in der BB rules does it state that you get to tell me what to say, Herr Commandant?

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

Originally posted by Daisy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
As for enemy combatants, they have no rights, as far as I am concerned. They do not live under the laws of this land and cannot appeal to those laws to defend their attempts to subvert by illegal means. If they want things to change, then they need to change. So long as American soldiers lives are at risk, necessary means should be used to gain information that may lead to the saving of lives. I cannot understand why the personal comfort and care of people who hate this country and are trying to destroy it are preserved at the risk of the lives of those who are defending it. We certainly need a good dose of common sense and reality.

But the problem here is that people have been determined to be enemy combatants (a new coinage) and deprived of their constitutional rights BEFORE they even received a trial, heard the charges or were allowed to defend themselves. Our government in doing this is subverting its own laws, its own constitution. This is wrong. </font>[/QUOTE]Sit a lawfully convicted terroist in Ole Sparky, and let ME throw the switch. Then I'll have a nice dinner and go to bed.

But I agree with Daisy in that the problem here is "who gets to call someone an enemy combatant?" Too many undefined loopholes.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

1. I didn't vote for Bush based on family values alone. I have listed my reasons for voting for him before so won't beat that dead horse. Look it up if you are interested.

2. His legal opinion was correct. For now, Roe V. Wade is the law.

3. I note that you didn't put this part in bold type here:

_said he would defend in court the 1996 law in which Congress said states do not have to recognize gay marriages.

I guess that wasn't worthy of being highlighted in bold type to you while you were trying to smear him. Oh well...

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by Daisy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
As for enemy combatants, they have no rights, as far as I am concerned. They do not live under the laws of this land and cannot appeal to those laws to defend their attempts to subvert by illegal means. If they want things to change, then they need to change. So long as American soldiers lives are at risk, necessary means should be used to gain information that may lead to the saving of lives. I cannot understand why the personal comfort and care of people who hate this country and are trying to destroy it are preserved at the risk of the lives of those who are defending it. We certainly need a good dose of common sense and reality.

But the problem here is that people have been determined to be enemy combatants (a new coinage) and deprived of their constitutional rights BEFORE they even received a trial, heard the charges or were allowed to defend themselves. Our government in doing this is subverting its own laws, its own constitution. This is wrong. </font>[/QUOTE]Are you talking about the fine folks at Gitmo? Becasue if you are, I would say that our first clue that they were enemy combatants were that they were captured in Afganistan shooting at our soldiers. They are not American citizens or legitimate soldiers, but terrorists, and therefore don't fall under the pervue of the Geneva Conventions.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Ain't gonna happen, Pastor Larry. There is NO CHANCE that this administration will even make an attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade.

They have already appointed pro life judges and most people (especially on the other side) think they will continue to. That is the first step on the road of overturning it. </font>[/QUOTE]Again, it ain't gonna happen, Pastor Larry.
BTW, the judges are not appointed by the Supreme Court. Even with Justice Scalia on the Court, it hasn't even come close to being overturned. Besides, do any of us believe that the Judiciary Committee will let any anti-abortion Justices make it through confirmation?

That wasn't an ethnic slur. It was a silly piece of nonsense. But it certainly didn't attack anyone based on ethnicity, or even less based on heritage. I thought I had missed something serious.

Yeah, I know: I had to look too!! I am almost completely German (I even have it nailed down to the Tribes!!) and I didn't take offense to it.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Again, it ain't gonna happen, Pastor Larry.

Not sure where you got your powers of prophecy, but I am of the wait and see type. Let's see what he does before we actually condemn him. He may not, and if not, I will be disappointed in him. I will not be surprised. But the truth is that he has already appointed pro life judges. So let's wait and see.

BTW, the judges are not appointed by the Supreme Court.

No kidding ... ... Why would you say that? I didn't say anything to the contrary.

Even with Justice Scalia on the Court, it hasn't even come close to being overturned.

Actually, it was 5-4 last time. And probably at least one from each side will retire (Rehnquist and OConner). There may be another from the 5 side.

Besides, do any of us believe that the Judiciary Committee will let any anti-abortion Justices make it through confirmation?

It is honestly hard to tell. It depends on what kind of paper trail there is, and how much hard ball Bush wants to play. Again, let's wait and see before we jump to conclusions.

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
I guess that wasn't worthy of being highlighted in bold type to you while you were trying to smear him. Oh well...

Joseph Botwinick

It wasn't relevant to the topic. It's good that he said that, though.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Well,

Actually, it is since you are focusing on the guy's values.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Pastor Larry]

It just doesn't work well when all you want to do is beat someone up, Joseph.

 

[fromtheright]

PA Jim,

Exactly what would you have the chief law enforcement officer in the country do about abortion?

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
Are you talking about the fine folks at Gitmo?

As well as those held incognito at other security centers.

Becasue if you are, I would say that our first clue that they were enemy combatants were that they were captured in Afganistan shooting at our soldiers.

How many were actually captured shooting at our soldiers in Afghanistan? Many were captured in other countries; many were not shooting but simply were within a camp or just within the vicinity; others were turned in by bounty hunters and/or political rivals. Why have we released all the ones we have if they are terrorists?

As for shooting at our soldiers, our soldiers were invading their country. If Mexico sent a troop across our border which tried to take US citizens prisoner and ununiformed citizens shot back at them, would those citizens be considered "unlawful combatants"?

They are not American citizens or legitimate soldiers, but terrorists, and therefore don't fall under the pervue of the Geneva Conventions.

American citizens in America never fall under the pervue of the Geneva Conventions; other combatants always (since the signing) have before.

And that returns to the question -- without a fair hearing, how do we know that the particular prisoner is a terrorist or, that questionable designation, a "unlawful combatant"?


In any case, Gonzalez' opinion that pain inflicted during interrogation which falls just short of death or major organ failure -- which opinion has since been repudiated -- is barbaric and unworthy of the US.

 

[fromtheright]

As to unlawful combatants, it wasn't very clear before the Supreme Court made its decision (and though I do accept their authority, that doesn't mean it can't still be debated, though it certainly changes the AG's job). Here are some papers on the issue (some are more specifically related than others):

HERE

HERE

HERE

HERE

HERE

HERE

HERE

 

[fromtheright]

And as to Gonzalez "sidestepp[ing] questions on whether it was legal for Senate Democrats to filibuster Bush's judicial nominations last year" it is at least a debatable issue:

HERE

HERE

HERE

HERE

 

[fromtheright]

And HERE is the Gonzalez actual torture memo.

 

[The Galatian]

So, according to Gonzales, acts that are "cruel, inhuman, and degrading" can be legal and ethical to commit.

That tells us what we need to know.

 

[Biblethumper]

And this means he is worse than Ashcroft?

In fact, I agree about the Roe v Wade issue, it is the law of the land. It is funny that no one cares about the other laws that he is willing to enforce, ie, the gay marriage thing.

I still would pick him over Ashcroft any day. (Then again I'd probably pick Mickey Mouse over him too....lol)