Miers was the bestest choice.
Posted By: JR on 2005-10-04
In Reply to: Salvation for whom? nm - AJ
If Bush nominated someone like, uh, Pat Robertson, dem dare dumb liberals mighta caughted on more quicker. This way, evangelicals rule and everyone else can go to... well... you know where.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
and Cheney was the bestest!!!!!
@@
Please learn English - bestest not a word, you MORON
M
Miers
Hmmm..I have had a problem since seeing the notes Miers wrote Bush and the cute birthday cards..I have worked for many, IMHO, powerful doctors and I have adored/has crushes on a few..I have given them gifts and cards for holidays and birthdays, however, I never would have given a card such as Miers gave Bush, nor written notes like she wrote..You must keep a separation between boss and employee, especially if the boss is married..This is cronyism at its best. However, I am looking forward to the hearings on her nomination as I want to see what she is all about and what she has to offer for a life time job..
I don't feel the need to make the choice. It's a child, not a choice. n/t
.
Harriet Miers withdraws nomination...
Falsified Bush Bio approved by Harriet Miers?
From http://www.send2press.com/newswire/2005-10-1017-006.shtml
Opinion & Commentary
Falsified Bush Biography Found on State Department Website (Approved by Harriet Miers?)
Edited by Carly Zander
Mon, 17 Oct 2005, 03:58 EDT
LOS ANGELES, Calif. (SEND2PRESS NEWSWIRE) -- On September 29, 2005, investigative journalist Hugh E. Scott found a White House biography on the Internet that claimed President Bush had flown Texas Air National Guard F102 interceptors almost six years when the actual time was 27 months. The text contained other exaggerations as well, says Scott.
Scott discovered the falsified document on a website maintained by the U.S. Embassy in Hanoi. On October 6, when he accessed the website again, Bush's biography had been deleted. Scott believes emails he sent two days before to newspapers in Washington, DC, alerted the White House and it sanitized the Hanoi website. However, the corrective action came too late. During his first visit, Scott made a printout of the 3,900-word document and mailed copies to friends for safekeeping.
Previously, in February 2004, he found an identical phony Bush history on another State Department website. To validate the smoking-gun evidence of White House skullduggery, Scott called the Boston Globe. Impressed, it reported his discovery the next morning, on 02/28/04, under the headline, Bush Bio on Web Inflates Guard Service, and gave him credit as the source.
Based on research for a forthcoming book about the president, Scott contends that Bush's longtime legal advisor, Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, helped write the bogus bio for use in his 2000 primary campaign against Arizona Senator John McCain. For certain, charges Scott, Miers approved George W.'s 1999 autobiography, A Charge to Keep, which covered up missed Guard drills in 1972 and his grounding that same year for failing to take a mandatory pilot medical exam.
Miers also approved the official White House biography posted on its website after the 2001 inauguration. The text claimed President Bush had operated ANG interceptors from 1968 to 1973, even though he was grounded on August 1, 1972.
Following publication of contradicting information by the print media, the White House changed the bio to read George W. served as an F102 pilot in the Texas Air National Guard.
Scott uncovered the Hanoi embassy bio while searching the Internet for other erroneous Bush histories. So far, he has found 12 biographical sources, ranging from InfoPlease to The Book of Knowledge and Encyclopedia Americana, that falsely state the president flew F102 jets in 1973.
For more information about the Hanoi embassy bio and to see a copy, visit Scott's website, www.King-George.biz or contact Hugh E. Scott at 805-498-8249.
Bush Nominates Harriet Miers to replace O'Connor
I'll be very interested to hear more about her. So far, I've learned that she contributed to Al Gore's campaign and was also involved with Legal Aid in the past. Either Bush is coming to his senses or this is merely another example of his ongoing cronyism. In this case, his cronyism just might actually finally benefit the American people this time.
Bush picks White House counsel for Supreme Court
If confirmed, Harriet Miers would succeed O'Connor
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush nominated White House counsel Harriet Miers on Monday to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
Miers, 60, was the first woman to head the State Bar of Texas. She has never been a judge.
An outspoken supporter of the Bush administration, she was a leader of its search for potential candidates to fill Supreme Court posts. A White House official said that at the same time, Bush considered her as a nominee without her knowledge.
In a televised announcement from the White House, Bush called Miers exceptionally well-suited for the high court. Miers has devoted her life to the rule of law and the cause of justice, he said.
He called on the Senate to review her qualifications thoroughly and fairly and to vote on her nomination promptly.
Miers said she was grateful and humbled by the nomination. ( Watch: Miers has no judicial experience -- 2:30)
It is the responsibility of every generation to be true to the founders' vision of the proper role of the courts in our society, she said.
If confirmed, I recognize that I will have a tremendous responsibility to keep our judicial system strong and to help ensure that the courts meet their obligations to strictly apply the laws and the Constitution. ( Watch Bush nominate Miers to the Supreme Court -- 9:09)
If the Senate confirms Miers, she would join Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the second sitting female justice on the bench. O'Connor became the court's first female justice in 1981.
Dinner offer
Bush offered her the job Sunday night over dinner in the White House residence, White House sources said.
During the summer, a vetting process for Miers took place once the president began considering her.
Bush took seriously suggestions by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, and ranking Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, that the president consider candidates from outside the appellate courts, the sources said.
Miers, 60, who has never been a judge, was the first woman to serve as president of the State Bar of Texas and Dallas Bar Association. She also was a member of the Dallas City Council. ( Profile)
More recently, Miers helped lead the administration's search for potential candidates to fill Supreme Court posts.
At the same time, a White House official said that Bush considered her as a nominee without her knowledge.
Reacting with caution
Initial reaction to Miers' nomination was cautious. ( Watch senators react to Miers' nomination -- 3:49)
Harriet Miers is an intelligent lawyer who shares the president's judicial philosophy, said Leonard Leo of the conservative Federalist Society.
She has demonstrated that in her capacity as White House counsel and a senior administration official as well as an active member of the organized bar.
Quietly, some conservatives involved in the White House's nominee selection consultation process said they are concerned with Bush's pick.
The reaction of many conservatives today will be that the president has made possibly the most unqualified choice since Abe Fortas who had been the president's lawyer, said conservative activist Manuel Miranda of the Third Branch Conference, referring to President Lyndon B. Johnson's pick to the high court in 1965.
The nomination of a nominee with no judicial record is a significant failure for the advisers that the White House gathered around it. However, the president deserves the benefit of a doubt, the nominee deserves the benefit of hearings, and every nominee deserves an up-or-down vote.
The Concerned Women for America, another conservative group, also took a wait-and-see approach on Miers.
We give Harriet Miers the benefit of the doubt because thus far, President Bush has selected nominees to the federal courts who are committed to the written Constitution, said Jan LaRue, chief counsel of the group. Whether we can support her will depend on what we learn from her record and the hearing process.
One Republican official said that many had expectations that Bush's pick would be a known conservative, adding that he was surprised by the president's choice.
Republicans were hoping for a clear conservative, the official said. It's going to be heavy lifting for us and the White House.
Another conservative source who was involved in the selection consultation process said Miers was not a big surprise and that she had always been someone under serious consideration.
She's a good conservative, the source said. She does share the president's views about law and public policy. But she is not well-known, which is going to be part of the challenge.
Democrats on the the Senate Judiciary Committee reacted cautiously to Miers' nomination, but they did not immediately oppose it.
It is too early to reach any firm judgment about such an important nomination, Leahy said in a statement, noting Miers long ties to President Bush. It is important to know whether she would enter this key post with the judicial independence necessary when the Supreme Court considers isues of interest to this Administration.
My first reaction is a simple one: It could have been a lot worst, Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, one of the Demcrats on the committee, said. ... The president has not sent us a nominee that we've rejected already.
Schumer continued, There's hope that Harriet Miers is a mainstream nominee. ... Given the fact that the extreme wing of the president's party was demanding someone of fealty to their views, this is a good first day in the process that begins to fill the seat of Sandra Day O'Connor.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, another Democratic committee member and its only woman, said she was happy that a woman was nominated to replace the outgoing O'Connor but wanted to know more about Miers' views on privacy and other issues.
This new justice will be critical in the balance with respect to rulings on congressional authority, as well as a woman's right to privacy, environmental protections, and many other aspects of constitutional law in the United States, Feinstein said.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, was complimentary of Miers.
I like Harriet Miers, Reid said in a statement. As White House counsel, she has worked with me in a courteous and professional manner. I am also impressed with the fact that she was a trailblazer for women as managing partner of a major Dallas law firm and as the first woman president of the Texas Bar Association.
Pivotal replacement
The choice to replace O'Connor, a key swing vote, could be pivotal. ( Full story)
The announcement came shortly before justices were to begin a new term with new Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who is the youngest member of the high court.
The term is expected to include rulings on several controversial cases, said Edward Lazarus, a Supreme Court legal analyst. ( Case list)
This is a situation where, from the very moment the justices start back up in October, they're going to be very divided, said Lazarus, who authored Closed Chambers, a book on the justices. It's going to be a lot of friction inside the building.
O'Connor announced her retirement in July. Bush initially chose Roberts for her seat, but the September 3 death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist changed the White House's strategy.
O'Connor has said she will stay on until she is replaced, making her role in the upcoming term unclear. Under court rules, a justice's vote does not count until a ruling is issued, a process that can take weeks or months.
Many legal scholars question whether O'Connor would want to continue hearing cases if her replacement takes over before rulings are issued, thereby negating her vote.
CNN's Dana Bash contributed to this report. |
|
|
|
|
|
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/03/scotus.miers |
Harriet Miers: Antonin Scalia in sheep's clothing
Harriet Miers: Antonin Scalia in sheep's clothing
October 11, 2005
By nominating Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, President Bush has put forth a total unknown. A blank slate. A cipher. Not even the president knows where she stands on the issues because he never asked her.
That's what the White House wants you to think. Don't you believe it.
Of course, if you listen to most conservatives, Harriet Miers is as dangerous as a card-carrying member of the ACLU. I'm disappointed, depressed and demoralized, huffed the Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol. Her qualifications for the Supreme Court are nonexistent, puffed former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan.
Nonsense.
Make no mistake about it. This decision is too important. Replacing William Rehnquist with John Roberts was a wash. It's this appointment, to fill the shoes of swing-vote Sandra Day O'Connor, that will determine the future direction of the Supreme Court. Karl Rove never would have let George Bush nominate Miers if he didn't know she agreed with Bush on every issue.
It's not hard to figure out how Bush decided on Miers. If elected president, he promised in 2000, he would appoint to the Supreme Court justices like extreme conservatives Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas. John Roberts didn't fit the bill, so Bush knew he had to deliver this time around. But he also knew any one of the names on the conservatives' wish list -- Michael Luttig, Edith Jones or Janice Rogers Brown -- would stir up a firestorm in the Senate, which Bush wanted to avoid.
So Bush came up with Plan B, as brilliant as it is diabolical: Nominate someone who is every bit as conservative as Luttig, Jones or Brown, privately, but who is a complete mystery, publicly. And that's Harriet Ellan Miers. The perfect stealth candidate. Antonin Scalia in sheep's clothing.
In case you still harbor any doubts about her right-wing credentials, here's final proof. After four days of complaints from the far right, Karl Rove got on the phone to leading conservatives, starting with James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family. Rove convinced him to support Miers, Dobson confirmed, by giving him confidential information on her religious beliefs. Miers, like Bush, is an evangelical Christian.
Notice how the White House plays the religion card both ways. It was wrong for Democrats to raise the fact John Roberts is a Catholic, they argued, just one month ago.
Notice also what their doing so tells us about Harriet Miers. She's a soul mate of James Dobson, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. She's anti-choice, anti-stem cell research, anti-separation of church and state, pro-school prayer and pro-teaching intelligent design in public-school science classes. She's way out of the mainstream.
So what are Democrats waiting for? They know enough about Miers already to merit all-out opposition -- including the filibuster, if necessary. And they'd better act fast.
If Harriet Miers is confirmed, we'll be yearning for the good old days of moderate William Rehnquist.
Bill Press is host of the nationally syndicated Bill Press Show. His e-mail address is: bill@billpress.com.
Special Offer: Get 2 Weeks of Daily sunday delivery Free when you buy 13 weeks.
©The Shreveport Times
October 11, 2005
Harriet Miers - Bush's newest *faith-based initiative*
At first I thought this was just an example of cronyism, considering that Bush paid Miers $19,000 in 1998 to assist in his National Guard AWOL debacle/scandal.
But after painfully watching his press conference this morning, I realized he was speaking in code about the fact that she isn't going to change her views on abortion. It's no secret she's pro-life. It's also no secret that so-called pro-lifers in the past have resorted to murdering abortion doctors in an attempt to stop abortion.
They will stop at nothing.
Including a faith-based Supreme Court Justice.
Kiss America GOODBYE.
P.S. to gt: Hi! 
Miers: Margaret Carlson & James Dobson know. Why doesn't Bush?
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000039&refer=columnist_carlson&sid=ajuZsQQbuwl4#
With Miers, Bush Gets Fifth Vote Against Roe: Margaret Carlson
Oct. 5 (Bloomberg) -- What if former President Bill Clinton had nominated his White House counsel, Bernie Nussbaum, to the Supreme Court? I can hear Bill Frist now. What does Slick Willy think he's doing -- filling a job at FEMA?
At first glance, there seems to be no other reason for Harriet Miers's nomination to the Supreme Court other than that she is President George W. Bush's Bernie Nussbaum. The notion that a careerist corporate lawyer would have risen to the top of Bush's list if she weren't down the hall is preposterous.
Unlike famous self-selector Dick Cheney, no one suspects the modest Miers looked in the mirror and saw the best replacement for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor staring back at her. Only Bush could see the ``heart'' and ``character'' in Miers that made her the perfect selection. She's been his consigliore, fixer and confidante for more than two decades, and she thinks the way he does.
The fact that Miers is a woman helps enormously. It looks as if Bush listened to wife Laura, who publicly suggested he should replace a woman with a woman. It's far more likely that Laura publicly suggested it because he already had decided to do so. The choice prompts automatic praise from some liberals, excites Democratic Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and placates Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein.
Bush's Wants
And notice how tongue-tied a potential critic, Senator Edward Kennedy, was two days ago trying to criticize her.
Miers satisfies a number of Bush's proclivities: his inability to distinguish an insider job from an outside one (White House counsel is the most partisan legal job in government), his desire to reward loyalty and his love of surprise.
Ambitious Republicans should be on notice that the best way to get ahead in the Bush years is to work anonymously inside. It was only because the White House floated Miers's name that she was on anyone's list.
This is not to say that Miers isn't a decent, competent (she may be a crony, but she's no Michael Brown) and respected person. She's devoted to her mother and brothers, a regular churchgoer, an early riser, an avid celebrator of birthdays.
Up the Ladder
In Dallas, she broke the glass ceiling for female lawyers (although she lived the life of a nun to get there). After meeting Bush in 1989, she represented him in matters ranging from his purchase of a fishing cottage in East Texas to questions about his National Guard service.
At the same time, she climbed a steep corporate ladder, becoming co-manager of a huge Dallas firm and chairwoman of the Texas Bar Association, specializing in commercial transactions for large corporations.
She served on the Dallas City Council and headed the Texas Lottery, where, some say, she cleaned up Powerball. She moved with the president to the White House, where the only complaint against her was that she lingered over paperwork too long.
She became counsel to the president when Alberto Gonzales was promoted to attorney general. Gonzales is another loyalist who proved himself to Governor Bush by speed-reading through death row appeals in Texas and redefining torture in the White House for purposes of allowing more of it in Iraq. With her nomination, Miers has gotten an even bigger promotion than her predecessor.
Shocked Conservatives
Some conservatives are loudly shocked that Bush ignored the long list of known quantities among conservative jurists in the mold of his favorites, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. It depressed Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol. Rush Limbaugh was so agitated Cheney gave him an interview to calm his listeners.
What those conservatives are missing is what Dr. James Dobson, chairman of Focus on the Family, and Jay Sekulow, chief counsel to the American Center for Law & Justice, see in Miers: a fifth vote for overturning Roe v. Wade. Bush even got Dobson's approval beforehand.
Like Bush, Miers had a late-in-life born-again moment, joining a conservative evangelical church in Dallas where she taught Sunday School.
In an interview in yesterday's Dallas Morning News, Miers's former campaign manager, Lorlee Bartos, said Miers told her when running for city council in 1989 that she had been ``pro-choice in her youth.'' Then, according to Bartos, Miers said she underwent ``a born-again, profound experience'' that caused her to change her mind and oppose abortion.
Keeping the Promise
That conversion fits with her $150 contribution to Texans United for Life in 1989 and her successful effort to get the American Bar Association to move from support for abortion rights to neutral in 1991. After the ABA switched back to a pro- abortion-rights position, Miers in 1993 failed in a bid to have the endorsement put to a vote of the full membership.
At his press conference yesterday, Bush claimed that in all the years he's known Miers he never learned her view on abortion. Dobson and Sekulow will have their hands full reassuring the base about that comment. It's one thing for Chuck Schumer to be left in the dark, quite another for Bush to say he purposely kept himself there.
Didn't he promise the base he'd turn the light on and give them a selection sure to reverse Roe?
I think he has. This time he's tricking Harry Reid.
I used to think the younger Bush was like his dad on abortion -- pro-life for purposes of getting elected, pro-choice otherwise. But I now see him as a victim of Stockholm syndrome, adopting as his own view that of his right-wing captors. My money is on Dobson knowing what Bush claims not to. Assuming Miers is confirmed, it won't be long before we all know.
To contact the writer of this column:
Margaret Carlson at mcarlson3@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: October 5, 2005 00:16 EDT
Choice
The three posters chose not to post anymore. No one ran them off.
Pro-Choice
I am pro-choice and here is why. My dad was a big city cop before Roe v. Wade. He told me true stories of woman dying from botched illegal abortions. Many times, they found women who had bled to death because they tried to abort the babies themselves with coat hangers. Other times, they found women dead from sepsis. This was in the days before ambulances when the cops answered all the medical calls.
He was anti-abortion but seeing all these dead young woman haunted him. He saw a lot of awful, gruesome stuff where he worked and eventually became somewhat hardened to it, but these cases he could never forget.
I am not pro-abortion but it is going to happen. It can either be legal and somewhat safe, or illegal and dangerous.
my choice
would be change with demonstrated ability to appreciate the complexity of situations and the willingness to listen to all views on the subject. precisely why I am an ardent Obama supporter.
Again, for those of you who are pro-choice...
and against hunting, fishing, etc, could you please explain the difference between killing something for food or because it is a menace to livestock as opposed to killing a child because it's not the right time for a baby, oops I got pregnant by "accident", oops I don't want children, etc. Again, it is rather ironic that one can be selective in their definition of killing.
whose choice?
seriously, where do you draw the line? i mean a 2-year-old is not old enough to make a "choice" of life or death, so you think it's okay to rid of them too?
choice
I do not think there is a person on here who is in favor of 3rd trimester abortion, etc. The thing is folks, that if abortion is abolished, it not only effects those who haven't learned of birth control use (and I don't feel sorry for them) but those in real need such as rape victims, maternal distress, etc. That is the trouble here, you can't do away with abortions entirely, though a lot of people have abused it. We don't need women resorting to butchers as they did in the past. Look, if someone is wanting one, they are going to have it, legal or not. We have to make it the same as any other medical procedure in this country.. you see your doctor, you make arrangements for the procedure to be done in the hospital through a referral.
what choice
When Obama wins, the repubs will no choice but to accept that fact. I cant wait to get out of the Bush admin and have a change. The last eight years has sunk our country.
There is another choice.....sm
for president. Check out Chuck Baldwin and the Constitutional Party. Warning: He is VERY conservative, so all you liberals need not look. ;o)
http://www.baldwin08.com/
Actually under O you will have no choice
The dems are talking about a draft. O has already starting talking about it being a requirment for college students. Yes REQUIRE, not option.
http://kokonutpundits.blogspot.com/2008/11/obamas-new-youth-corp-requirement.html
Going to war is your choice...not ours.
Those who choose to elect war-mongers should be the ones sent to battle. Those who choose to elect peace-loving Presidents should not be forced to serve. That is why there are conscientious objectors.
I think you summed it up when you described the lack of intelligence involved in being the first to enlist.
I don't think we will have any choice. (sm)
As you said, people will do whatever they have to feed thier families. I also think before it's over with, we'll have to get a board for gardening on this site...LOL.
Bad choice, but he had to do it (sm)
IMHO, Obama made a deal with the Clintons in order to get elected and now it's pay up time. Look at all the Clintonites he's got surrounding him - the positions have changed, but all the faces are the same. All we need is Madeline Albright in there somewhere.
It is my choice, and I don't believe it.
Scare tactics are a dime a dozen in religion.
No, I think the choice was hers...(sm)
but that's the point. She had the choice of either having the baby or not, as opposed to being forced into having the baby, which is exactly what outlawing abortion would do.
What exactly do you think Pro Choice is?
Pro Choice means you believe a woman has the right to decide what to do with her body - exactly how do you figure Obama is not Pro Choice?
And he is not saying that women are going to be required to abort their unborn - he is saying they are going to have the right!
That's your choice
and God gives you that right.
Christianity is very much based on fact just as it is on faith. The faith comes from having faith that Jesus' death was sufficient for all. The facts have been shown through archeology and even science.
If the Bible was scrutinized the way other ancient literature has been, it would be found to be true and consistent within itself, but because there is preconceived notions held by those who scrutinize, such as the "fact" that miracles cannot happen, it is believed to be incorrect, myth if you will.
I used to be just like you. I used to think that Christians were rude Bible-thumping bigots who tried to take the corner on Heaven. But when I finally dropped my bias and read the Bible as I would any other book and once I let people actually speak their peace to me, I came to the logical conclusion that Jesus was real, He was the Godman, and He was the Lord. Reading the Bible through you cannot help but notice the consistency and fluidness that runs through it. The OT is the story of the promise God made, and the NT is God fulfilling that promise.
I was not raised in a church, I was not taught about Jesus by my parents. I was not forced to go to Sunday School and I was not forced to be baptized. I made a decision. A decision has to be made with your mind, your emotion and your spirit. It's a three part deal. Many people make emotional decisions and once the emotion is gone, so is the decision. Many people make logical decisions, but the decision is never personal for them, so neither is the relationship with God. Many times the spirit tries to guide someone to the decision, but the person feels logically or emotionally that they cannot.
I may come off as brash because I don't take the "we are all on the same path route" as some do. I would be wrong in doing so, and I would be denying what my Lord explicitly said. To do so would have serious repercussions for me. Therefore, I choose to do what He says and have people not like me, rather than do what people would have me do and deny the One who died for me.
And that is your choice
You choose that belief; I don't. If you want to lead a life ruled entirely by Biblical law, maybe you could all band together and buy an island or something and call it Christganistan. This is a secular country, founded to get away from the idea that there is one true way to live one's life.
The more the so-called tolerant Christians write here, the less difference I see between Radical Islam and Fundamental Christian. It's two sides of the same coin, and it saddens me that this country, founded on principles of individual choice, has seemingly regressed in that regard.
It is NOT a choice.
You keep on with this ridiculous choice bit, but homosexuality is not a choice anymore than being blond or tall or having blue eyes is a choice. It is what the individual is born as.
Sure it's a choice.
God says it is. I believe Him not you. Sorry...
thank you and I like #2 choice. nm..
x
I don't know where they want to go with it, but abortion is a choice..sm
and last time I checked it was not limited to one race. Can that same one prove that more blacks abort than whites? There goes that theory.
A word about choice
I think we have probably said all that we can say on that matter, and we won't agree, but I enjoyed speaking with you.
I just want to add a word about women who support choice. It seems that many people are quick to judge a woman that supports choice, stating that she must have had an abortion or would be willing to have one. I can only speak for myself, a few friends, and family members, but I can tell you that in our case, this it entirely not true. My sister always states that she is, Personally conservative, but politically liberal. I do have a few friends who had had abortions, but I do not believe that I could ever have one myself, and though I would stand by my daughter if that was a choice she made, I would be devastated inside. So, while this is not a choice I would make, I will still support the right to choose for other women. In an ideal world, there would be no unwanted pregnancies, but until there is, I will always stand for choice.
Peace.
A word about choice...
And I enjoy talking with you. It is good to discuss opposing viewpoints without anger and condescencion. We will have to agree to disagree. There is so much more to this than just abortion. As I have said, and as I will continue to say, when we as a nation begin to devalue life at any stage, we are on a slippery slope headed downward. And to start that devaluation with the most innocent and helpless among us...is horrifying to me. The idea of murdering captive child in utero is absolutely horrifying to me. As I said, I will follow the law of the land, and just because some wingnuts have blown up clinics and shot doctors does not mean that all people of faith believe that. I believe it is wrong to do that and I would have no part of that. However, I will continue to call it what I believe it is, and that is murder. And in the end, the women who choose abortion and the doctors who perform them will have to answer for that one day, not to you or me, but to God.
God bless!
It is not our choice who becomes president
Whether we like or dislike someone, vote or not vote for them, they are not elected by the people. I totally understand when people say "so'n'so is not my President. I felt that way when Bill Clinton was in. He campaigned as one person and once he got in the office all the promises he made, all the "changes" he said he'd bring never happened. He was a totally different person than what he campaigned as and therefore he was "not my president". The same was with Hillary. All I kept thinking was great, here we go again...this country is going to be without another president for 4 years. I was hoping for the best and luckily it worked out for the country's best to not have her in there. In actuality the people who have the money control who is put in there. We saw that with the Bush/Gore campaign (even though I'm thankful Gore didn't get in). I highly doubt all of Obama's donations are from people who send in $5 and $10. Although I leaning more towards him over McCain. To call someone names (retarded, hillbilly, etc) is childish and an insult to the people who are actually "special" and hillbillies. Also calling them the antichrist is also another stupid remark put out by people who don't understand. Sure Bush is not among the brightest who have held the office. He should have been impeached a long time ago (but we have the dems Pelosi and others) who stopped that (why I don't know). So, no Bush is not the brightest, he has committed war crimes (IMO). But Clinton was no better. If there was a contest in the worst President I would not be able to decide between the two. Neither of them know or care what the regular person (me and my family and friends) are going through. They don't know we're struggling with paying bills, grocery shopping, paying for gas, etc. Hillary Clinton fortunately is out of the race. I sweated that one. We won't even begin to go into all the lies and crooked campaigning she did. Why people don't remember what it was like when she and Billy were in there I can't understand. Clinton's presidency was the worst ever. Each time a President gets in their the economy gets worse. We end up more in debt as time goes on. So to say its worse with Bush than Clinton, you also have to say it was worse with Clinton than Bush Sr, worse with Bush Sr than Regan, etc, etc. We just go further and further into debt and each campaign are promised that they have a solution to get the debt down. I'm no Bush fan, but one thing that is a fact is that people have been paying lower taxes with Bush than Clinton. I found a fact sheet that showed what people paid for taxes under Bush and what they paid under Clinton. Clinton was awful. It was a dark time for our country. He misrepresented our country and made us look like fools. I counted every day until he left office and then in those last few hours was rewarded with learning how much more crooked he was by giving out pardons like it was candy at a halloween party. I also think Bush is awful, but the country would have been worse off with Gore (the Bore), and Kerry (Mr. Lerch). John McCain would be the worse thing that happened to this country, but I always have to remember...my vote doesn't count. Whoever "big brothers" want in there they will put in there.
I approve of his choice. I also was...sm
impressed by Obama's statement that he did not want to choose a yes man.
I think that was a good choice also.
Biden has over 30+ years experience and isn't afraid to voice his opinion if he disagrees with an issue. Great choice and can't wait for them to WIN!! Be real people - can you see Cindy McCain (druggie) as a first lady? She's afraid of her own shadow and it's like watching paint dry when she talks! Okay, Michele needs to spruce up that wardrobe but she's got more brains then McCain and Cindy put together.
it was an insane choice
I certainly do not want to wake up every morning in a country where such mind-boggling choices are foisted on us by the president out of the blue.
not even john's first choice
ABC's Jan Crawford Greenburg reports: It wasn't until Sunday night that John McCain, after meeting with his four top advisers, finally decided he could not tap independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut to be his running mate. One adviser, tasked with taking the temperature of the conservative base, had strongly made the case to McCain that it would be a disaster for the party and that the base would revolt. McCain concluded he could not go that route.
So the man McSame thought would make the best vice president was vetoed by his fundie base. And he caved.
But he's very Mavericky!
That's her business and choice if she does, not yours.
Just because YOU wouldn't be able to handle children plus a job doesn't mean another woman wouldn't. Perhaps your energy or patience level isn't up to it, but I know plenty of women that have high-profile careers and young children and handle both beautifully. It's all about balance. Again, just because you might not be able to find that balance doesn't mean others can't.
Nothing wrong with his choice....and so far...
no Marxists have given her a rousing endorsement either. Another point in her favor.
Definition of choice
Choice consists of the mental process of thinking involved with the process of judging the merits of multiple options and selecting one of them for action. Some simple examples include deciding whether to get up in the morning or go back to sleep, or selecting a given route for a journey. More complex examples (often decisions that affect what a person thinks or their core beliefs) include choosing a lifestyle, religious affiliation, or political position.
You choose your path, I'll choose mine.
In the United States, the Bill of Rights is the name by which the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution are known.[1] They were introduced by James Madison to the First United States Congress in 1789 as a series of constitutional amendments, and came into effect on December 15, 1791, when they had been ratified by three-fourths of the States. The Bill of Rights limits the powers of the federal government of the United States, protecting the rights of all citizens, residents and visitors on United States territory.
The Bill of Rights protects freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, the freedom of assembly, and the freedom to petition. It also prohibits unreasonable search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment, and compelled self-incrimination. The Bill of Rights also prohibits Congress from making any law respecting establishment of religion and prohibits the federal government from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. In federal criminal cases, it requires indictment by grand jury for any capital or "infamous crime", guarantees a speedy public trial with an impartial jury composed of members of the state or judicial district in which the crime occurred, and prohibits double jeopardy. In addition, the Bill of Rights states that "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,"[2] and reserves all powers not granted to the federal government to the citizenry or States. Most of these restrictions were later applied to the states by a series of decisions applying the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868, after the American Civil War.
Are you pro-choice? Just askin', cause...
I always find it ironic that people against hunting, etc, don't mind abortion at all....killing is killing.
Sam, was he your choice from the very beginning
or did you prefer one of the other candidates during the primary? I am just curious, no sinister motive behind this question.
I'm in favor of choice
So, yes, I want the deck stacked on my side, lol! If you aren't in favor of an abortion, then please don't have one. You can make that choice all by yourself.
Pro choice is one thing
pro infanticide is another. The point is that he was opposed to a bill to protect these newborns. Why on earth would you oppose that? Furthermore, he kept calling the newborns "embryos" or "fetuses." Now, I'm pretty sure there is a difference between an embryo, fetus, and a baby that has come out of the mother's womb and is breathing right??
Now lets look at this from the argument of "well he was concerned that this we would end up in court about this over and over again"
The definition of embryo is:
Main Entry: em·bryo
Pronunciation: primarystressem-bremacron-secondarystressomacr
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural em·bry·os
1 archaic : a vertebrate at any stage of development prior to birth or hatching
2 : an animal in the early stages of growth and differentiation that are characterized by cleavage, the laying down of fundamental tissues, and the formation of primitive organs and organ systems; especially : the developing human individual from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after conception -- compare FETUS
And the definition of FETUS is:
Main Entry: fe·tus
Variant(s): or chiefly British foe·tus /primarystressfemacront-schwas/
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural fe·tus·es or chiefly British foe·tus·es or foe·ti /primarystressfemacront-secondarystressimacr/
: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth -- compare EMBRYO
Ok so that being said, we can all agree that fetus and embryo means "before birth" and once the fetus or embryo is born, it is no longer considered such. It is now considered a human. If it is born breathing, it is a living human, correct?
So first off, either Obama didn't do well in biology class, or he is purposely underplaying the fact that this is a living, breathing child. He keeps saying "fetus, or child as some describe it" ---it is a child, right? that's what we figured out above. Next he says that this would bar abortions because we are considering this DELIVERED LIVING BREATHING HUMAN a CHILD. WHAT?? He than says we are trying to give the same rights of a 9 month old child has to a preterm baby. So all the preemies out there shouldn't have the same rights as a child that was born full term??
He keeps saying its unconstitutional to try to keep alive a "previable fetus or child" These are two completely different things. These woman aren't pushing out a cell sack of a would-be child, these are developed, breathing, crying children. Why on earth does he say that is unconstitutional?
To me it speaks a lot about him as a person to even say anything against this. And I don't think he was trying to better the bill, because he doesn't make any suggestions to do so, he is just saying "it's unconstitutional to say that we have to offer these unwanted babies the same rights as other citizens"
Look, I understand being pro choice, in fact, that is your choice! (no pun intended) I am not pro choice, but that isn't the issue here. The issue here is that this man opposed a bill to save the lives of these children. That is just cruel. If he can do that about newborn babies, who else can he do it about?
BTW the bill was passed, and it hasn't been struck down in court yet.
Still a better choice than Obama, who will put the
nm
happy with the choice of
Gregory for Meet the Press. I think the team at NBC and MSNBC have put together in the last year is exceptional. Its a good feeling to have faith in our new president, his cabinet appointees and even the media covering him. I think maybe we had to hit Bush-rock bottom to be able to get our act together. Did anyone hear that Rev Wright called Eliz Hasselback a dumb blonde or such other phrase.
He would have been a GREAT choice but
you guys would have been over him like white on rice (no pun intended) because he is African-American. sheesh.
Freedom of Choice Act
The Freedom of Choice Act would make abortion a federal issue and would basically do away with any restrictions on abortion. There are many state level FOCA acts already, but this would be the first time that it would be a federal act. I'm not a legal brain so I'm not sure if I am explaining this 100%. From reading both sides of the issue, it will basically lift all restrictions on getting abortions, meaning going in and having an abortion will be as simple as going in and having a check up.
To me that is just a new form of birth control and completely unacceptable. Yes, women have the right to choose. They have the right to choose to wait to have sex and to use good judgment. They have a right to choose to not sleep around. They have a right to birth control and requiring a man to wear a condom.
I understand there are dire situations, such as rape, incest, and in cases where the mother's PHYSICAL health is at risk. While I don't believe in abortion at all and wish it had never been thought of, I do sympathize with those mothers, and yes something should be done to help them. But to just say "hey abortions for everyone!!" is ridiculous! You know as well as I that most abortions are done simply because having a child would be an inconvenience. That is not right! If you don't want the consequence of having a child, then keep your legs closed! Sorry!
it is a personal choice
If you make it a religious choice, it is a toss up. Most Jews believe life begins at first breath, just like when God breathed into Adam's nostril. Protestants are divided on the issue. Many mainline/reform churches take the choice stance, including PC-USA and others.
I believe it is a tough decision, but I sure as heck don't see it as murder. Since you do, you probably should not have an abortion. Since my DH had a vasectomy, I probably won't need one. But if am raped, or the vas were to fail, you can be darn sure I want to be able to make that choice.
The shame is that we don't have another choice (sm)
I wish there was someone I could truly feel good about voting for.
|
