|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 186 responses total. |
happyboy
|
|
response 101 of 186:
| 
Jan 24 03:14 UTC 2006 |
the moderates like him ok, not so the wingnuts who are in
power, so yeah.
|
tod
|
|
response 102 of 186:
|
Jan 24 07:41 UTC 2006 |
re #99
I dont think the good ol boys have the guts to put Condi out there.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 103 of 186:
|
Jan 24 09:13 UTC 2006 |
"she may be a nigra, but she's OWR nigra!"
--trent lott
|
tod
|
|
response 104 of 186:
|
Jan 24 18:02 UTC 2006 |
"We's gots us a token prezdunt"
|
gull
|
|
response 105 of 186:
|
Jan 24 19:10 UTC 2006 |
Re resp:99: I don't think Condi has a chance of getting the nomination.
I'm pretty sure she's on the record of being pro-choice, so she fails
the single most important litmus test.
|
gull
|
|
response 106 of 186:
|
Jan 24 19:10 UTC 2006 |
On the record *as* being pro-choice, that is.
|
klg
|
|
response 107 of 186:
|
Jan 24 20:10 UTC 2006 |
Miss Rice: I believe if you go back to 2000, when I helped the
president in the campaign, I said that I was, in effect, kind of
Libertarian on this issue, and meaning by that that I have been
concerned about a government role in this issue. I'm a strong proponent
of parental choice, of parental notification. I'm a strong proponent of
a ban on late-term abortion. These are all things that I think unite
people and I think that that's where we should be. I've called myself
at times mildly pro-choice.
Mr. Sammon: That was the phrase that kept coming up.
Miss Rice: Yeah, mildly pro-choice. That's what that means. I think
that there are a lot of things that we can unite around, and that's
where I would tend to be. I'm very comfortable with the president's
view that we have to respect and need to have a culture that respects
life. This should be an issue pretty infrequently because we ought to
have a culture that says that, "Who wants to have an abortion? Who
wants to see a daughter or a friend or, you know, a sibling go through
something like that?" And so I believe the president has been in
exactly the right place about this, which is, we have to respect the
culture of life and we have to try and bring people to have respect for
it and make this as rare a circumstance as possible.
Mr. Sammon: The only reason I even brought it up was because there
is a school of thought that says that no conservative Republican can be
elected president if they are not firmly pro-life. I know you haven't
ruled anything in or out but...
Miss Rice: I'm not trying to be elected.
Mr. Sammon: But it sounds like you do not wish to change the laws
that now allow ...
Miss Rice: Well, I don't spend my entire life thinking about these
issues. You know, I spend my time really thinking about the foreign
policy issues. But you know that I'm a deeply religious person and so,
from my point of view, these extremely difficult moral issues where we
have where we're facing issues with technology and the prolongation
of life and the fact that very, very young babies are able to survive
now very small babies are able to survive these are great moral
issues.
What I do think is that we should not have the federal government
in a position where it is forcing its views on one side or the other.
So, for instance, I've tended to agree with those who do not favor
federal funding for abortion, because I believe that those who hold a
strong moral view on the other side should not be forced to fund it.
|
tod
|
|
response 108 of 186:
|
Jan 24 20:15 UTC 2006 |
I wonder how she feels about the White House xmas tree lighting ceremony and
if those of us with strong moral views against church/state should not have
to fund that as well?
|
marcvh
|
|
response 109 of 186:
|
Jan 24 20:42 UTC 2006 |
It's hard to imagine the GOP faithful being OK with her as a candidate.
The usual source of candidates would be successful GOP governors.
There are 2 Republican governors who have some degree of national name
recognition, but one is constitutionally ineligible and neither is
particularly anti-abortion.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 110 of 186:
|
Jan 24 20:45 UTC 2006 |
re #109: Jeb in 2008? <shudder>
|
marcvh
|
|
response 111 of 186:
|
Jan 24 20:53 UTC 2006 |
Wasn't thinking of him (the other one on my mind was Pataki) but he's
certainly another one most people have heard of.
|
tod
|
|
response 112 of 186:
|
Jan 24 21:08 UTC 2006 |
President Edgar Stiles in 2008
|
klg
|
|
response 113 of 186:
|
Jan 25 02:23 UTC 2006 |
Mitt Romney!
|
gull
|
|
response 114 of 186:
|
Jan 25 03:16 UTC 2006 |
Re resp:108: Yeah, I can think of lots of stuff I have moral issues
with funding. NSA wiretapping, for example. Why is it only abortion
where people get to argue they should be able to pick and choose?
|
bru
|
|
response 115 of 186:
|
Jan 25 05:52 UTC 2006 |
I could support Condi for President.
I could support Jeb Bush for President.
I could support Pataki for president.
I could support Newt Gingrich for president.
All of them are good choices.
What we have a problem with the Court nomination proceedure is that the
liberals have totaly lost sight of what their role is. Their job is to
vet the person chosen by the president and make sure he is fit to hold
that position.
They are not supposed to look at his personal views on any subject
other than to get a feel for him as a person. When Ginsberg was
nominated, even thought she was a staunch supporter of Roe v. Wade, the
republicans voted witht eh dems to confirm her unanimously. Why?
Because she was a good choice for the position.
Same with Alito. The man has the highest recomendations from his
peers, but the dems are looking to get a solid vote against him based
on his personal beliefs, not his skill on the bench.
Disgusting.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 116 of 186:
|
Jan 25 06:20 UTC 2006 |
You can say all that because you think that Alito is "your man" on abortion,
gay marriage, executive power, etc.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 117 of 186:
|
Jan 25 07:04 UTC 2006 |
As usual, bru is wrong on his facts. The senate did not vote unanimously to
confirm Ginsberg.
|
klg
|
|
response 118 of 186:
|
Jan 25 11:49 UTC 2006 |
Who were the 3 against?
|
johnnie
|
|
response 119 of 186:
|
Jan 25 14:13 UTC 2006 |
>Alito...has the highest recomendations from his peers, but the dems are
>looking to get a solid vote against him based on his personal beliefs...
>Disgusting.
So when President Hillary has a vacancy to fill due to the resignation
of, say, Justice Thomas, and she nominates a highly intelligent and
experienced jurist who is so personally liberal as to make Michael Moore
look like a goddamn JohnBircher, you'll argue that Republicans should
absolutely vote to confirm, yes?
|
slynne
|
|
response 120 of 186:
|
Jan 25 14:34 UTC 2006 |
Oh come on. He'll argue that Republicans should NOT confirm but based
on the person's skills on the bench. EVERYONE knows that being liberal
is a symptom of not having skills on the bench. ;)
|
twenex
|
|
response 121 of 186:
|
Jan 25 15:32 UTC 2006 |
Well of course. Naturally. As a law of physics. Etc.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 122 of 186:
|
Jan 25 20:38 UTC 2006 |
I believe I saw a news report that "the committee" (?) had voted 10-8 to
recommend Alito's nomination.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 123 of 186:
|
Jan 25 20:38 UTC 2006 |
The Judiciary Committee perchance? Yeah, all the Dems voted no.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 124 of 186:
|
Jan 25 21:35 UTC 2006 |
Most of them will vote no on the floor as well. A few GOP senators (including
Stevens, oddly enough) haven't committed yet.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 125 of 186:
|
Jan 26 05:08 UTC 2006 |
resp:102 If she does run, I have no problem voting against her.
|