xpanda said:
Bush had come out for a Palestinian state a while ago as long as it wasn't run by terrorists like Arafat. His nomination for AG is not pro-choice; Gonzalez isn't as far right as Ashcroft on the subject but few people are. The immigration issue certainly was stuck on the back burner until after the election...that was one subject that could have drawn the Red States to Kerry had Kerry not been so incompetent.
Most conservatives understand Bush isn't a true believer in the cause...he'll have some problems from the Right in his 2nd term.
Shotgun:
Bush announced Wednesday that he had chosen Gonzales, his 49-year-old White House counsel for almost four years, to be the first Hispanic to be the nation's top law enforcement officer." The REAL story behind this story was revealed in the next story: Gonzales is pro-abortion!
NEWS BRIEF: "Pro-lifers not thrilled with Gonzales choice: Bush's pick for attorney general upheld abortion on Texas court", WorldNetDaily, November 10, 2004
"Pro-life activists are criticizing President Bush's choice of Alberto Gonzales to replace John Ashcroft as attorney general ... Gonzales is a former member of the Texas Supreme Court, where he voted to allow a teenager to get an abortion without notifying her parents, circumventing the notification law in that state."
Did you catch the most important point? Alberto Gonzales voted to circumvent existing law in the state of Texas! When a Judge of a State Supreme Court votes to override clear law instead of just interpreting that law, we are in real trouble. Texas law forbade a pregnant teen to get an abortion without notifying her parents. The law was firm and unambiguous. Yet, Judge Gonzales voted to side-step that firm and clear law. If an ordinary citizen side-steps a law, we call him a criminal and arrest him; but when a sitting judge does the same thing, no action is taken.
Not only is this judicial activism at its worst -- which President Bush says he will not allow -- but Gonzales identified himself as a Liberal pro-abortionist.
Bush announced Wednesday that he had chosen Gonzales, his 49-year-old White House counsel for almost four years, to be the first Hispanic to be the nation's top law enforcement officer." The REAL story behind this story was revealed in the next story: Gonzales is pro-abortion!
NEWS BRIEF: "Pro-lifers not thrilled with Gonzales choice: Bush's pick for attorney general upheld abortion on Texas court", WorldNetDaily, November 10, 2004
"Pro-life activists are criticizing President Bush's choice of Alberto Gonzales to replace John Ashcroft as attorney general ... Gonzales is a former member of the Texas Supreme Court, where he voted to allow a teenager to get an abortion without notifying her parents, circumventing the notification law in that state."
Did you catch the most important point? Alberto Gonzales voted to circumvent existing law in the state of Texas! When a Judge of a State Supreme Court votes to override clear law instead of just interpreting that law, we are in real trouble. Texas law forbade a pregnant teen to get an abortion without notifying her parents. The law was firm and unambiguous. Yet, Judge Gonzales voted to side-step that firm and clear law. If an ordinary citizen side-steps a law, we call him a criminal and arrest him; but when a sitting judge does the same thing, no action is taken.
Not only is this judicial activism at its worst -- which President Bush says he will not allow -- but Gonzales identified himself as a Liberal pro-abortionist.
What you lying,deciving, left wing half-a communist pee-pee puffers,convinently forgot to mention.Judge Go-Go voted that way because she (the girl) was afrid her old man would kill her.He had in the past broken her arms and sh!t for other things to prove her point....Which the law provides protection of the law in such cases.Don't try to frame Go-Go Gonzales as creating law out of whole cloth like the 4 liberal imam clerics did in Mass. on gay marriage issue.
What is it? This board is like Fallluja...I have to come in here and swat away anti-american pablum puking liberals the minute I'm gone for a day....Jesus!
Washington, D.C.-Judie Brown, president of American Life League, issued the following statement in response to news that White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales is being considered as the replacement for U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft:
"President Bush appears to be doing all that he can to downright ignore
pro-life principles. There can be no other explanation for his
recommendation of Alberto Gonzales as attorney general. Gonzales has a record, and that record is crystal clear.
"As a Texas Supreme Court justice, Gonzales' rulings implied he does not view abortion as a heinous crime. Choosing not to rule against abortion, in any situation, is the epitome of denying justice for an entire segment of the American population - preborn babies in the womb.
"When asked if his own personal feelings about abortion would play a role in his decisions, Gonzales told the Los Angeles Times in 2001 that his 'own personal feelings about abortion don't matter. The question is, what is the law, what is the precedent, what is binding in rendering your decision. Sometimes, interpreting a statute, you may have to uphold a statute that you may find personally offensive. But as a judge, that's your job.' Gonzales' position is clear: the personhood of the preborn human being is secondary to technical points of law, and that is a deadly perspective for anyone to take.
"President Bush claims he wants to assist in bringing about a culture of
life. Such a culture begins with total protection for every innocent human being from the moment that person's life begins. Within the short period of one week, the president has been silent on pro-abortion Sen. Arlen Specter's desire to chair the senate judiciary committee, and has spoken out in favor of a judge with a pro-abortion track record to lead the Justice Department"
"President Bush appears to be doing all that he can to downright ignore
pro-life principles. There can be no other explanation for his
recommendation of Alberto Gonzales as attorney general. Gonzales has a record, and that record is crystal clear.
"As a Texas Supreme Court justice, Gonzales' rulings implied he does not view abortion as a heinous crime. Choosing not to rule against abortion, in any situation, is the epitome of denying justice for an entire segment of the American population - preborn babies in the womb.
"When asked if his own personal feelings about abortion would play a role in his decisions, Gonzales told the Los Angeles Times in 2001 that his 'own personal feelings about abortion don't matter. The question is, what is the law, what is the precedent, what is binding in rendering your decision. Sometimes, interpreting a statute, you may have to uphold a statute that you may find personally offensive. But as a judge, that's your job.' Gonzales' position is clear: the personhood of the preborn human being is secondary to technical points of law, and that is a deadly perspective for anyone to take.
"President Bush claims he wants to assist in bringing about a culture of
life. Such a culture begins with total protection for every innocent human being from the moment that person's life begins. Within the short period of one week, the president has been silent on pro-abortion Sen. Arlen Specter's desire to chair the senate judiciary committee, and has spoken out in favor of a judge with a pro-abortion track record to lead the Justice Department"
Doc, do you ever read what you copy and paste? You posted this:
"Did you catch the most important point? Alberto Gonzales voted to circumvent existing law in the state of Texas! When a Judge of a State Supreme Court votes to override clear law instead of just interpreting that law, we are in real trouble."
In another post you write this:
"When asked if his own personal feelings about abortion would play a role in his decisions, Gonzales told the Los Angeles Times in 2001 that his 'own personal feelings about abortion don't matter. The question is, what is the law, what is the precedent, what is binding in rendering your decision. Sometimes, interpreting a statute, you may have to uphold a statute that you may find personally offensive. But as a judge, that's your job.'"
Aren't those two comments a bit contradictory?
"Did you catch the most important point? Alberto Gonzales voted to circumvent existing law in the state of Texas! When a Judge of a State Supreme Court votes to override clear law instead of just interpreting that law, we are in real trouble."
In another post you write this:
"When asked if his own personal feelings about abortion would play a role in his decisions, Gonzales told the Los Angeles Times in 2001 that his 'own personal feelings about abortion don't matter. The question is, what is the law, what is the precedent, what is binding in rendering your decision. Sometimes, interpreting a statute, you may have to uphold a statute that you may find personally offensive. But as a judge, that's your job.'"
Aren't those two comments a bit contradictory?
The illegal immigration bill won't likely pass through Congress (or the Senate, or wherever that kind of legislation passes through -- I'm still learning 
) so that one is rather moot, I suspect. It's probably intended to maintain Hispanic support for the Party. Appointing Gonzales might well be coloured with the same intent, or it could be attributed to the issues Doc points out, or a bit of both. The Palestinian situation could be to court international support and demonstrate that Bush is open to diplomacy.
My problem is that I trust these guys about as much as a pack of drunk fraternity boys babysitting 15-year-old virgins. Not so much. I just can't shake the feeling that fascism is boiling south of the border.
Speaking of fascism, I'm reading today that the new CIA head, Peter Goss, is purging agents who were 'disloyal' to Bush in his first term, and who leaked 'damaging information' to the media. Not sure what their definition of disloyalty and damaging information is, but this move sure does echo the 'with us or against' rhetoric that has defined this admin. Business as usual in this respect, at least.
) so that one is rather moot, I suspect. It's probably intended to maintain Hispanic support for the Party. Appointing Gonzales might well be coloured with the same intent, or it could be attributed to the issues Doc points out, or a bit of both. The Palestinian situation could be to court international support and demonstrate that Bush is open to diplomacy.My problem is that I trust these guys about as much as a pack of drunk fraternity boys babysitting 15-year-old virgins. Not so much. I just can't shake the feeling that fascism is boiling south of the border.
Speaking of fascism, I'm reading today that the new CIA head, Peter Goss, is purging agents who were 'disloyal' to Bush in his first term, and who leaked 'damaging information' to the media. Not sure what their definition of disloyalty and damaging information is, but this move sure does echo the 'with us or against' rhetoric that has defined this admin. Business as usual in this respect, at least.
Xpanda:
You mean the same Goss that wanted to slash human intelligence by 25% in the late 1990's ... I guess that makes him weak on defense like Kerry?
Shotgun: Bottom line .. Gonzales was hand picked by Bush for a lot of reasons and 2 that clearly come to mind are his dealings with ENRON & HALLIBURTON .... I dont trust Bush on any issues and without the war those 2 names would have ended the reigns of Cheney & Bush .. as far as abortion, that is a topic that there seems to be on inbetween right now in this country: you are either on one side of the fence or the other and there seems to be no inbetween room for diccussions
You mean the same Goss that wanted to slash human intelligence by 25% in the late 1990's ... I guess that makes him weak on defense like Kerry?
Shotgun: Bottom line .. Gonzales was hand picked by Bush for a lot of reasons and 2 that clearly come to mind are his dealings with ENRON & HALLIBURTON .... I dont trust Bush on any issues and without the war those 2 names would have ended the reigns of Cheney & Bush .. as far as abortion, that is a topic that there seems to be on inbetween right now in this country: you are either on one side of the fence or the other and there seems to be no inbetween room for diccussions
doc mercer said:
I don't buy that at all Doc. There is plenty of in between room for both sides, ranging from the banning of partial birth abortion to the public funding of abortion. Most Americans are against both, but the fringe on the left refuses to go along....lots of money is involved in the abortion industry.
Many months ago, barman pointed out that somewhere around half of the states had already banned PBA and that it was anything but a widespread practice. I think he said something in the neighbourhood of 2200 of them were performed in 2003, and, since the records are obviously confidential, there is no knowledge of what percentage were for the mother's health or for 'birth control.' (couldn't think of a better term at the moment.)Shotgun said:
The danger in banning PBA isn't that it will deny this service to women (it's obviously not widespread to begin with) but that it opens up a Pandora's box regarding the legal status of the fetus. At what point do we cross from 'fetus' to 'unborn child'? At the moment it appears that 'last trimester' is in the works, but this gets messy, obviously. If we say 'six months from conception onwards' how do we justify 'six months less a day' as being okay? Further, how do you prove precisely how old a fetus is?
I think most people, pro-choice or not, understand just how horrifying PBA is. It's the legal implications for abortion in its entirety that worry the pro-choice movement.
