Roberts on key issues

[manu1959]

How is it not being in the consitution automatically mean it must therefore be wrong to allow abortion? I think what they were protecting was an individual's right to choose.

first, i have no clue .... how does it not being in the constitution automatically mean it must therfore be right to allow an abortion.....

and second, the constitution does not guarantee the right to an abortion....there is also nothing that guarantees the right to choose an abortion....which is why the argument is ... that roe v wade was wrongly decided as the constituion does not guarantee the right to life liberty and the pursiuit of an abortion.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

How does dealing with criminals held at Gitmo, who were captured not in the US and did their crimes NOT in the US, attack our sovereignty? One could argue that we attacked Afghanistan's and Iraqi's sovereignty.

And why must you us the term Liberal like it is a disease? Let me set the records straight, NO LIBERALS I know of what international law to supplant the US constitution. This is a world problem that needs to be dealt with in a global stage.

Because it places the war criminals that we caught under the auspices of an international tribunal made of countries that don't even recognize the war we are engaged in. They would probably just let them go to terrorize another day. Also, they would probably declare Bush a war criminal. That, among other reasons, is why Bush and conservatives basically oppose the ICC or the UN for that matter. If you are feeling sorry for Afghanistan and Iraq because we attacked them, you are forgetting the threat that they posed - which btw was noted by many, many liberals - before they hated Bush.

Sorry, but liberalism IS a disease as well as a mental disorder. It tries to pretend it is American in nature but it is just a wolf in sheep's clothing. It represents all things unAmerican as it is essentially socialism or communism lite. You must not know or understand very many liberals. LIberals everywhere want to supplant the U.S. Constitution with international law and tear down the U.S. any way they can. Why do you think U.S. liberals are in such a tizzy about Roberts? They don't want him, an originalist - they want another liberal judicial activist that will condone rulings that are unAmerican and unconstitutional in nature.

 

[bock2911]

Because it places the war criminals that we caught under the auspices of an international tribunal made of countries that don't even recognize the war we are engaged in. They would probably just let them go to terrorize another day. Also, they would probably declare Bush a war criminal. That, among other reasons, is why Bush and conservatives basically oppose the ICC or the UN for that matter. If you are feeling sorry for Afghanistan and Iraq because we attacked them, you are forgetting the threat that they posed - which btw was noted by many, many liberals - before they hated Bush.

Sorry, but liberalism IS a disease as well as a mental disorder. It tries to pretend it is American in nature but it is just a wolf in sheep's clothing. It represents all things unAmerican as it is essentially socialism or communism lite. You must not know or understand very many liberals. LIberals everywhere want to supplant the U.S. Constitution with international law and tear down the U.S. any way they can. Why do you think U.S. liberals are in such a tizzy about Roberts? They don't want him, an originalist - they want another liberal judicial activist that will condone rulings that are unAmerican and unconstitutional in nature.

With Iraq, you mean the threat of WMD's that we have found tons of? And My point wasn't that I felt sorry for them, don't put words into my mouth! And which war are you speaking of? The war in Iraq, or war against terror? Very big difference. I still firmly believe the only way to fight the war on terror is on an international front. The US just going around appears to be like the bully on the block. If we get more countries involved, it is more like a neighborhood watch. It just makes sense that the more resources would help the fight.

And I have been waiting for someone to pull out the idea of socialism and communism. How is a authoritarian state any better than a communist state? Cuase that is where Bush's belief's tend to go. I think both types of state just don't work and limit people's freedom. The nice happy place is somewhere in the middle.

And having a tizzy on Roberts? Have you even been reading the news out of congress? Last time I heard, there wasn't a hint of a threat of a filibuster? They just want to ask him questions during the confirmation process, which I think they have every right to do. And how is he an originalist?

And please, where do you get your belief on Liberals? Maybe the really, REALLY extreme ones do. It is just as bad to be a far right. And I am still waiting for someone to say something other than 'Oh gosh, he's liberal, he's un-american. He is against the US consitution.' I hope you realize how close minded and ridiculous you sound. And that goes for the hard left too. Both extremes are ridiculous.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

With Iraq, you mean the threat of WMD's that we have found tons of? And My point wasn't that I felt sorry for them, don't put words into my mouth! And which war are you speaking of? The war in Iraq, or war against terror? Very big difference. I still firmly believe the only way to fight the war on terror is on an international front. The US just going around appears to be like the bully on the block. If we get more countries involved, it is more like a neighborhood watch. It just makes sense that the more resources would help the fight.

You really are a liberal loony aren't you? We are already fighting terror on an international front. Duh. If the rest of the world wants to join in, nobody's stopping them. But you'd rather call the U.S. the Great Satan instead, wouldn't you? Threat of WMDs? Old, old argument. Try reading Cp's excellent post and learn something: http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22353&highlight=clinton+wmd's

And I have been waiting for someone to pull out the idea of socialism and communism. How is a authoritarian state any better than a communist state? Cuase that is where Bush's belief's tend to go. I think both types of state just don't work and limit people's freedom. The nice happy place is somewhere in the middle.

You prove that we have become an "authoritarian state". Your hatred of Bush has made you demented. Last time I looked we still vote in our representatives to Congress as well as democratically elect a President.

And having a tizzy on Roberts? Have you even been reading the news out of congress? Last time I heard, there wasn't a hint of a threat of a filibuster? They just want to ask him questions during the confirmation process, which I think they have every right to do. And how is he an originalist?

You obviously don’t read much or watch TV political discussions. The organized lobbies are all lined up and thirsting for battle. Your liberal leaders have already voted against Roberts. And things are only in the warm-up stage for what they consider the "swing vote" of the Supreme Court. Liberals are whining all over the place about appointing a judge who will not push their political agenda in the court system - which is the opposite of an originalist - one who makes determinations based upon close interpretation of the Constitution as it is written. Anything not covered in the Constitution should fall to state determination.

And please, where do you get your belief on Liberals? Maybe the really, REALLY extreme ones do. It is just as bad to be a far right. And I am still waiting for someone to say something other than 'Oh gosh, he's liberal, he's un-american. He is against the US consitution.' I hope you realize how close minded and ridiculous you sound. And that goes for the hard left too. Both extremes are ridiculous.

If George Washington were alive today you would consider him to be an extremist far right wing nut!
You liberals do not understand how far to the left you have taken our country. You blindly follow your debased, socialist/communist leaning, un-American leaders such as Tedrunk Kennedy, Hill the Socialist Pill, Chuck the Constitution Schumer, and Tick Turban. I happen to think your leaders are extreme and ridiculous and they tend to prove it over and over again….but you liberal lemmings don't even notice.

 

[bock2911]

Bravo my friend, bravo. You have yet to give me anything new in your arguments. And a response to that guys entire deal of why we are in Iraq, why didn't we go to Iran instead? All indications is that they are a much bigger harborer of terrorists?

And my statment that Bush as authoritarian leanings is not my idea at first. I got it from this site: http://www.politicalcompass.org/ They rated where a large number of world leaders are. So there is my proof. And my dislike of Bush has a reason, I feel like he has manipulated the facts to gain his agenda, which I disagree with anyway.

And What I have been reading isn't any liberal news reports or commentators. I have been reading press releases from the Senate by Dems, who have not gone crazy yet on the issue of Roberts.

And again, STOP PUTTING WORDS INTO MY MOUTH! I have never said any thing along the lines of a far right wing nut.

If you are going to come at me, use something more articulate please and to the point other than your own whining without any real information.

 

[Avatar4321]

How is it not being in the consitution automatically mean it must therefore be wrong to allow abortion? I think what they were protecting was an individual's right to choose.

No person has a right to choose to take the life of another person. Roe v Wade is wrong. Period. let the people decide whether they want abortion legalized. Why is the left so afraid of letting the people voice their opinions?

I really take offense to this one. How can people consistently ignore all scientific data that says there is a global warming problem? Oh yeah, its probably b/c an Official in the White House edited environmental reports so language indicitating there is a problem was white-washed.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/06/08/MNGLHD55IJ1.DTL

Because so called global warming is nothing but junk science. The climate of the world has gone up and down throughout the history of the world. Humans survived an Ice age. We survived warmer periods of time. Example, the middle ages were alot warmer than it is now. The climate changes naturally. Who we will deal with it. So why on earth do you think you can change the natural cyclical climate processes by refusing to use certain products? especially when cows farting gives off more of the so called green house gases then anything we could do? Why should we suddenly believe that we are somehow effecting the tempature of the world when scientists have barely been studying it for twenty years and the climate has been changing for supposedly 6 billion? Why should we believe so called scientists when they cant even decide whether we are facing global warming or global cooling? Why should we believe Al Gore when he speaks out agaisnt global warming on one of the coldest days in modern history?

The environment is a convenient issue for politicians. They can get people worked up. pretend they are doing something that actually benefits the people and the people have no real way of measuring if it's been effective. The Environmental movement is alot of bosh.