Roe vs . Wade is a decision handed down...
Posted By: sam on 2008-09-16 In Reply to: What is Roe v. Wade?......NM - another oldtimer
Complete Discussion Below: The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
Other related messages found in our database you obviously won't......it's already been handed over Ahh....the writ handed down from she who... A fairly even-handed portrayal of the war>>>> Lack of Mandate on Iraq Haunts Bush
“Iraqi support for the overthrow of Saddam was real, but ultimately insufficient to the full scope of the American project. ”
NPR.org , August 22, 2005 · Among the many lessons the U.S. is being taught in the travails of Iraq, one stands out because it should not have been necessary. Let's call this lesson the rule of proportionate mandate.
The rule is this: the scope of your plans must be matched by the breadth of your support. Remaking the Middle East by overthrowing its ugliest autocratic government was a bold undertaking. In concept, it may have been visionary. But to attempt it without overwhelming support from key constituencies was to court disaster.
Much that we have learned in Iraq has become clear in hindsight. But this one, basic rule should have been clear from the outset.
Before invading Iraq, the administration of President Bush needed the broad backing of three constituencies: the Iraqi people, the international community and the American public. In each case, the administration heard just enough of what it wanted to hear to conclude it had sufficient support. In each case, it was wrong.
In 2003, U.S. intelligence was satisfied it could count on resistance to Saddam Hussein among Kurds in northern Iraq, who were already semi-autonomous. The Shiite Arabs in the south were also presumably anti-Saddam. And if some Sunni in central Iraq remained loyal to the Baathist regime, they would be relatively few and readily isolated.
We know now that support for a U.S. invasion was overstated, that very few Iraqis backed a long-term U.S. occupation and that even a remnant of determined Sunni can sustain a deadly insurgency indefinitely. In other words, Iraqi support for the overthrow of Saddam was real, but ultimately insufficient to the full scope of the American project.
In the international sphere, the U.S. move into Iraq was supported by Great Britain and some other European states. But the United Nations preferred a course of more deliberate pressure on Saddam. More important, the U.S. did not have the Islamic allies it had in the 1991 war to oust Saddam from Kuwait. Most of these states feared the consequences of a greater American presence in their geographic midst.
So despite the much-invoked "coalition of the willing," the U.S.-led invasion looked disturbingly unilateral in 2003. And the ongoing occupation looks even more so today, as the ranks of coalition partners have thinned.
As for the third constituency, the American public, we were sold on the war intellectually as a defensive strike to rid the world of a tyrant who had (or would soon have) weapons of mass destruction. On a more visceral level, the war had appeal as revenge for the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 -- even without a connection between Iraq and those attacks. Today, of course, the weapons justification is regarded as either an error or a sham. The second basis remains, and the president now regularly refers to the war in Iraq as making Americans safer.
In 2003, the war pitch worked well enough to win a polling majority. But it was never an overwhelming majority, as in the case of Pearl Harbor or the invasion of Afghanistan in late 2001. This lack of a full mandate, proportionate to the ambition of the war policy, cast a cloud over the endeavor from the start.
Because the margin in favor of war was never that great, the inevitable dwindling of support in the face of adversity and frustration has now reduced the level of public support well below 50 percent. In the latest Gallup polls, 54 percent said the war was a mistake, not worth its cost. An even greater percentage, 57 percent, said the Iraq war is not making Americans safer.
This is far from being our first experience with the rule of proportionate mandate. Most Americans supported the wars in Korea and Vietnam, at least at first, but not enough to maintain the kind of national effort those wars turned out to demand.
The need for broad backing affects domestic issues as well. The obvious example was President Bill Clinton's abortive attempt to redesign the nation's health care system in 1993 and 1994. Clinton's 42 percent plurality in the three-way election of 1992 was nowhere near enough to propel that kind of change in the face of concerted opposition. In similar fashion, President Bush has found that his historically narrow re-election margin lent him little momentum with which to tackle the Social Security system this year.
This is not to say that no president can govern in a country so politically divided as ours. In the contemporary American system, the president must lead. Even those who have become president upon the death of their predecessors have done so.
But there are limits. All presidents must govern within the norms of representative democracy, and these include the rule of proportionate mandate. Push a minimal majority too hard and it will be a majority no more. Pushing further still raises fundamental questions of legitimacy.
Obama caught red handed..... He finally said the words "SPREAD THE WEALTH" when asked by a plumber about raising his taxes. THe plumber told him he could not afford to have his taxes raised because that would keep him from being able to expand his business, EMPLOY more folks, etc. Obama told him yes he would but ONLY to help "spread the wealth" and make it fairer for others. That man couldn't care less about small businesses. If that isn't about the most ignorant/self-absorbed/SOCIALIST thing I have ever heard. Anyone who still thinks he's a good deal needs a reality check.
Even the Wall Street Journal says his policies are going to put businesses OUT OF BUSINESS because they cannot afford these ridiculous policy mandates. This man is looking out for only one people and definitely NOT the country. Now, he is going back and asking his "advisors" to REDO ANOTHER ECONOMIC POLICY so the one everyone is jumping on as WONDERFUL NEWS...be advised, it is changing again!!!
He is now wanting MORE money to give to MORE people so we can keep MORE PEOPLE on the welfare roll. KEEP IT UP BUDDY.....SOCIALISM, SOCIALISM, SOCIALISM!!
Roe vs Wade. I think it is amazing that more is not said about her decision to renounce Roe vs Wade, since she was the one who defined the legalization of abortion. She says now that she regrets it and thinks abortion is wrong. I wonder often how many women, in later years, have grave misgivings and sadness about having had an abortion. I have found, as a woman in her 7th decade, that there are things from my youth I certainly regret. I am happy to say, abortion is not one of them. I have to share a letter with you from a man I have had an ongoing discussion with regarding Jewish faith and abortion. Please note the ending statements. It is quite telling, don't you think. Here's his response to my letter:
Yes, there are Jews that are against abortion but it is not from true Jewish teachings. You should know that their is clearly no soul till birth or so many days after depending on which Jewish beliefs are followed.
The soul is what makes humans uniquely different from any other animal - so while some Jews like emotional Christians who are ignorant of Christian teachings (same issue and nothing in Christian bible about abortion being wrong), use emotional terms like unborn etc, all there is, is a souless fetus.
I have a very extensive additional research report on Jewish views of abortion that basically supports what I discuss on website. But I just haven't had time to digest in summarize it since its just not a major interest of mine.
Bottom line is it should be up to the women based on HER beliefs, not some old men in Washington restricting a women's right to choose again based on HER beliefs not yours, mine or laws. Clearly in my view there is nothing wrong from a Christian biblical view which I have researched the most over the decades. But Jewish view seems similar and even more clear that their is no soul till birth or various days after.
In my view if a women can not support another child, she has a moral duty NOT to give birth. I don't want to pay via welfare and taxes for someone else who wasn't responsible enough to either give up for adoption (best choice) or abort if isn't emotionally or financially able to provide. But of course she has the right to make her own decision, but don't expect me to pay for it via taxes/welfare.
What is Roe v. Wade?......NM Say Goodbye to Roe v. Wade
BUSH'S SUPREME COURT NOMINEE Wife of Nominee Holds Strong Antiabortion Views By Richard A. SerranoTimes staff writers Walter F. Roche Jr. and Benjamin Weyl in Washington contributed to this report. Excuse me....before Roe vs Wade we all had... Judge Roberts and Roe vs Wade Roe v Wade put such decisions where they belonged - Roe versus Wade majority and problems with the law Roe vs Wade gave us the right to choose years ago. nm what decision?? nm Well, are you saying it should be O's decision? (nm) Not O's decision...(sm) Obviously, the right decision. I'm sure you still But who and how would that decision be made Seems like a logical decision to reject a man who would guarantee that the election would be lost. There is a lot at stake here. I think that is a good example of him putting Country First, not his own personal preference, if indeed his preference was Lieberman.
making right decision This is my first post on the Politics board. I'm struggling with my decision between voting D or R.
I'm a registered Democrat and have been pro O'Bama 100%... until this past week when I read "They Must Be Stopped" by Brigitte Gabriel, founder of ACT! For America at www.actforamerica.org.
First, I am in no way saying O'Bama is Muslim, I do not believe that, but I am concerned with his voting record regarding bills that would protect us here at home. I'm middle class and believe me, I want to support the tax cuts and programs he is talking about...
I do not understand why either side will not stand up and call the "War on Terror" what it really is. I see the American traditions I grew up with disappearing and being replaced with "politically correct" traditions. A supposedly holy book (Koran) calling for my death or to strip me of my rights as a woman. On and on and on.
I haven't seen anything mentioned about this issue and I am interested in how other women/men feel.
I'm happy for you and that your decision I have made my decision - I have tried to educate people about Obama and his christianity - the fact that he is NOT muslim, his health care plans - the fact that it is NOT universal healthcare he is proposing, his tax programs - the fact that he is NOT going to write a check to people who are not working... and it is NOT working. They just do not want to believe. And for the most part, it is not even the economy people are picking on him about now - everyone is still on this muslim crap, mad because he is getting his girls a dog, just nitpicking! It is ridiculous.
I will no longer try to help people see the truth. If they want to be miserable and think bad thoughts and harbor suspicion and hatred in their hearts, then it is their life and nobody can change those folks anyway. I am sure it is not just the election that makes them mean and nasty - probably are that way in every aspect of their lives...
I myself choose to look on the bright side of things and the hope that this country is turning around and will be AMERICA THE GREAT once again!!! The America that other countries envy and want to be!
But it isn't your decision to make, is it? DC and make a REAL difference if you feel so strongly about it. It is an attorney's job to represent his client's INTERESTS. Get it? They are in it for the money - just like you work for money. I'm not too worried about his moral compass after witnessing Larry Craig, Foley, Abramoff, Libby......need I go on?
I think he made the right decision... Please don't base your decision on who you vote...sm It shouldn't be. It's a private decision, not one to I don't know the whole situation, so won't judge his decision nm There was no decision to be made. I was dealing with a Thank you and I have equal respect for your decision. s/m And if you read the previous decision on this Could be, but it's their decision to make, not yours, not the govt I agree with O's decision. Showing this I commend you on a courageous decision you made the right decision, I, too, commend you....nm sorry, Obama did not make this decision - War is a Partisan Decision (and more on amnesty for terrorists) Now here's an honest Republican. Very refreshing!
URL: http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/state/article/0,1406,KNS_348_4781865,00.html
Duncan: War is a partisan decision Knox Republican opposed successful GOP bill aimed at testing Democrats
By RICHARD POWELSON, powelsonr@shns.com June 17, 2006
WASHINGTON - War should not be a partisan decision by Congress, but it generally appears to have become that, Knoxville Rep. John J. Duncan Jr., a war opponent, said on the House floor Friday.
I believe 80 percent of Republicans would have opposed the war in Iraq if it had been started by President (Bill) Clinton or (Al) Gore, and probably almost all the Democrats would have been supporting it, as they did the bombings in Bosnia and Kosovo (during the Clinton administration), Duncan said.
Under Democrat Clinton's presidency, when he planned bombings in Bosnia and Kosovo, 80 percent of Republicans, including Duncan, opposed it, Duncan noted.
In a vote Friday, Duncan was the only Tennessee Republican and one of just three Republicans nationally to oppose a Republican-drafted bill aimed at questioning Democrats' commitment to national security several months before the November general election. It passed 256-153. Democrats voted 149-42 against it, and one Independent opposed it.
The nonbinding legislation refused to set any dates for changing troop strength in Iraq, labeled the Iraq war part of the global war on terrorism, and praised U.S. troops' sacrifice in Iraq.
Duncan, one of the most conservative House members, said everyone supports the troops. It is certainly no criticism of them to criticize this war, he said. I am steadfastly opposed to this war, and I have been since the beginning. We need to start putting our own people first once again and bring our troops home - the sooner the better.
Two other Tennessee members opposed the resolution: Democrats Harold Ford Jr. of Memphis and John Tanner of Union City.
Voting in favor were Republicans Bill Jenkins of Rogersville, Zach Wamp of Chattanooga, and Marsha Blackburn of Brentwood; and Democrats Lincoln Davis of Pall Mall, Jim Cooper of Nashville, and Bart Gordon of Murfreesboro.
Ford and Tanner said they strongly support the troops. But they noted that current Iraqi government leaders reportedly are considering granting amnesty to Iraqis who killed U.S. troops as acts of resistance and defense of their homeland. They cannot support a government that would grant such amnesty, Ford and Tanner said in written statements.
Ford, a U.S. Senate candidate, called the Republican resolution a gimmick that fails to recognize that 'stay the course' is not working and that amnesty for terrorists is unforgivable.
Tennessee supporters generally said they wanted to demonstrate confidence in U.S. troops in Iraq.
Premature withdrawal is not an option, Wamp said in a recorded statement. It's an effective surrender. It's important that we stand firm and that we finish what we started and that the world sees that we're going to honor our commitments to the people of Iraq and the people of the Middle East.
Davis, the only Democrat serving part of East Tennessee, accused Republican leaders of using the legislation as a political tool to try to make Democrats look sheepish. In a written statement, he said he has visited Iraq four times to show the troops that Congress supports their work.
But Davis said federal officials now should focus on how we stabilize the country ... and how we get our troops home safe as soon as possible.
Richard Powelson may be reached at 202-408-2727.
Have you been watching the convention and does this help you in your voting decision Have you been watching the Democrat convention and what do you think so far? I watched it last night. Lots of commentaries that were a little boring. I will definitely NOT watch when both Hillary & Bill speak (they will have nothing interesting to hear), but I will watch everything else. Loved the tribute to Kennedy. His health condition is tragic. He's done so much good while in the senate. Also found Michelle to be a wonderful speaker and a very good hearted person. She grew up and was raised similar to my beliefs and how I was raised. She knows the struggles we Americans face every day. I think Barack and Michelle are just a couple of very down to earth, well grounded individuals and their daughters are simply adorable.
On the republican side I am equally anxious to watch that convention. I need to hear Cindy McCain talk before I can decide what kind of a person I think she is. I want to hear about her and John McCain's story and what their family is like.
Does the convention help you in your choice of who you will vote for.
It is a fair question. The decision will have to be made during the next... I need more than "shock and awe" to make an intelligent decision on this one... You're right about the Supreme Court decision,... I agree with Obama's decision to not show them. (sm) It would embolden our enemies and help to recruit more terrorists. I thought Obama, once again, listened to both sides and then made his decision. If only Bush could have done that, instead of only hiring aides that would reflect HIS views and discarding those who didn't, including some of those "generals on the ground" that Bush claimed to honor.
I don't understand the posts below about Obama showing the photos. Last I heard, the complete opposite was true. Did something change, or are these comments just another attempt to completely ignore the truth in order to continue their assault on Obama, regardless of whether it's true or not?
Typical, let someone make a decision in a free country.. Obama Decision to Move Census to White House... GOP Sounds Alarm Over Obama Decision to Move Census to White House Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, told FOX News on Monday that he finds it hard to believe the Obama administration felt the need to place re-evaluation of the inner workings of the census so high on his to-do list, just three weeks into his presidency. This is nothing more than a political land grab," Chaffetz said. Its results determine the decennial redrawing of congressional districts As a matter of impact, the census has tremendous political significance. Political parties are always eager to have a hand in redrawing districts so that they can maximize their own party's clout while minimizing the opposition, often through gerrymandering. But critics say the White House chief of staff can't be expected to handle the census in a neutral manner. Emanuel ran the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in the 2006 election, and he was instrumental in getting Democrats elected into the majority. Critics note that the method of counting can skew the census. Democrats have long advocated using mathematical estimates, a practice known as "sampling," to count urban residents and immigrants. Republicans say the Constitution requires a physical head count, which entails going door-to-door. because the Census Bureau wouldn't count Mormon missionaries from Utah serving temporarily overseas. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson to be commerce secretary -- he was later forced to withdraw -- he indicated that Richardson would be in charge of the census. New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg, a Republican, to be his commerce secretary. Gregg has long opposed "sampling" by the census and has voted against funding increases for the bureau. Sabato said moving the census "in-house" will likely set up a situation where neither the Commerce Department nor the White House will know exactly what is going on in the Census Bureau. He said the process is "too critical to politics for both parties not to pay close attention." I've always remembered what Joseph Stalin said: 'Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.' The same principle applies to the census. Since one or the other party will always be in power at the time of the census, it is vital that the out-of-power party at least be able to observe the process to make sure it isn't being stacked in favor of the party in power. This will be difficult for the GOP since I suspect Democrats will control both houses of Congress for the entire Obama first term," Sabato said.
Obama on his decision to deploy additional 17,000 troops in Afghanistan..sm Obama Justice Department Decision Will Allow Non-Citizens to Register to Vote in Georgia Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel issued the following statement following the U.S. Department of Justice’s denial of preclearance of Georgia’s voter verification process
Atlanta - “The decision by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to deny preclearance of Georgia’s already implemented citizenship verification process shows a shocking disregard for the integrity of our elections. With this decision, DOJ has now barred Georgia from continuing the citizenship verification program that DOJ lawyers helped to craft. DOJ’s decision also nullifies the orders of two federal courts directing Georgia to implement the procedure for the 2008 general election. The decision comes seven months after Georgia requested an expedited review of the preclearance submission.
“DOJ has thrown open the door for activist organizations such as ACORN to register non-citizens to vote in Georgia’s elections, and the state has no ability to verify an applicant’s citizenship status or whether the individual even exists. DOJ completely disregarded Georgia’s obvious and direct interest in preventing non-citizens from voting, instead siding with the ACLU and MALDEF. Clearly, politics took priority over common sense and good public policy.
“It is important to underscore that not a single person has come forward to say he or she could not vote because of the verification process. Further, while DOJ argues that the process is somehow discriminatory, the historic voter turnout among Hispanic and African-American voters in the 2008 general elections clearly says otherwise.
“This decision provides a specific example of the inherently illogical and unfair nature of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. It is a sad day for the rights of our state and for the integrity of our elections. I remain committed to continuing the fight for citizenship verification. In the coming days, I will consider every option available to the state, including the possibility of legal action.”
Background:
As required by law and ordered by federal courts in October 2008, the eligibility of new applicants to register and vote is checked against the Georgia Department of Driver Services (DDS) and Social Security Administration databases to ensure that individuals registering to vote report similar information. If information in these databases does not match information reported on the voter registration form, the applicant is asked to clarify the information. Additionally, if the applicant previously reported to DDS that he or she is not a U.S. citizen, that person is asked by a registrar to provide proof of citizenship.
Prior to the November 2008 General Election, Secretary Handel sent letters to 4,771 voter registration applicants whose records at DDS indicated they were not U.S. citizens, asking them to provide documentation of their citizenship. As of March 2009, 2,148 of these applicants still have chosen not to resolve the question about their U.S. citizenship.
In the November 2008 General Election, county election officials reported that 599 individuals cast a challenged ballot because the voter had previously indicated to DDS that he or she was not a United States citizen and had not resolved their status with county officials at the time of the election. Of those, 369 ballots were accepted because the voter provided documentation of their citizenship after the election; and 230 were rejected because the individual chose not to confirm his or her citizenship status.
On October 10, 2008, activist organizations including the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit to attempt to prevent Georgia from verifying the eligibility of applicants to register and vote in the November General Election, including whether those individuals were citizens of the United States.
On October 16, 2008, U.S. District Court Judge Jack Camp denied the motion by MALDEF and ACLU; directed the State to continue the verification process; and acknowledged the State’s requirements to verify information under the Help America Vote Act. In his order, Judge Camp stated:
HAVA requires that Defendant Handel match information in the statewide voter registration database with information from the Georgia DDS and the SSA databases “to the extent necessary to enable each such official to verify the accuracy of the information provided on the applications for voter registration.”
Judge Camp also stated: ...
marks the location of current message within thread
