Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Locked Topic
CNN Campbell Brown
Topic Started: Sep 3 2008, 10:40 AM (3,531 Views)
Deleted User
Deleted User

Whenever we get to the comparison between the Frame and the 88 and the Obama campaign....

No body on the "other side" wants to touch it.

Why?
Goto Top
 
genny6348
Genny6348
no ammo?
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Jezebelle

joan foster
Sep 4 2008, 10:31 AM
This repealing Roe v Wade nonsense reminds me of a memorable put down I once received from an Italian tailor here in town. I thought I had sent him four pairs of my husband's slacks for alteration, and was hyper when only two were returned.

After listening to my panicked rhetoric for some time..he looked at me disgustedly and said.."Lady, nobody gonna steal-a your husbands pants."
:roflmao: :roflmao:
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Jezebelle

duke09parent
Sep 4 2008, 11:43 AM
joan foster
Sep 4 2008, 10:31 AM
This repealing Roe v Wade nonsense reminds me of a memorable put down I once received from an Italian tailor here in town. I thought I had sent him four pairs of my husband's slacks for alteration, and was hyper when only two were returned.

After listening to my panicked rhetoric for some time..he looked at me disgustedly and said.."Lady, nobody gonna steal-a your husbands pants."
:har: Joan, I have always loved your ability to draw examples from your life to make a point. I copied all your essays on the Hoax for my own little file.

Your point on most Repub women being pro-choice is surprising to me. Practically, though, Repub women couldn't prevent reversal of Roe any more than a minority bloc in the Senate since a President who has that intent with Scotus appointments cannot really be prevented if the candidate is otherwise qualified.

Quote:
 
Was there an attempt to go after Roe v Wade..or even serious discussion of the same by this administration?
Well, yeah, he's named John Roberts.

Your point about scare tactics in political ads is completely correct. Both parties do it and I find it annoying as hell. Apparently they're effective, though.
How has Chief Justice Roberts gone after Roe?

I sincerely hope you reply to my question this time. You did not reply to my last question to you. It's on p.3 of this same thread.
Edited by Jezebelle, Sep 4 2008, 03:16 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
duke09parent

Quote:
 
And you are angry at Homeland Security? About loss of privacy and rights? What is the potential here?

Tell me where I'm wrong , and assure me, with examples please , that WHAT I SAW in Durham and N.C....I need not fear from the Left when they control the Presidency, Congress, the Media, the Radio, the Internet, the Justice Dept, and 1/2 of a divided court (God knows what in a few years.)

Please show me how I'm wrong.


You're not wrong. That's exactly why the Patriot Act powers are dangerous. When those powers are permitted only political friends of those in charge are safe.

It's not so much a payback for Bush but rather a desire that the least amount of carryover possible from this administration to the next occurs.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Jezebelle

duke09parent
Sep 4 2008, 12:36 PM
Quote:
 
Each of us has something we fear. Perhaps yours is Choice.

Not so much really, despite my posts about it here the last couple of days. I don't even fear reversal of Roe so much because even that just throws it back to the state legislatures and most states would retain abortion rights for most situations. I'm really more fearful of the police state features of the Patriot Act and Homeland Security. Both parties apparently want them and that depresses met a lot.

I'm not even all that fearful at the two choices for the election. Each has strengths and weaknesses and I don't think either will be a disaster (or a saviour). "Choice" is probably the tipping point for me away from McCain toward Obama. But it might also be a desire to reject Bush policies and punish the Repub party for his transgressions. Hell, it might even be a desire to purge my soul of my vote for GWB against Gore 8 years ago.
Can you point to the sections in the codified Patriot Act that establish police state features that differ from previous law? How would Homeland Security be able to operate in ways contravened by the PA or other law?
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

joan foster
Sep 4 2008, 01:49 PM
What I felt...just as an outsider in this case...was the frustration of the suppression of all logic and truth to meet political "needs." The truth was there. We were all looking at the same facts. But the power of the state, "the Richest Daddy of Them All" was used to prevent the truth from reaching a wider audience.

The Left controls the MSM. Who, after the Duke Frame and the Palin family scourging denies that? They cannot be trusted to not enable a State run by their Leftist comrades in arms. They cannot be counted on to bring Truth to power if the power is the Leftist model they are pushing.

So there would be no MSM to challenge a leftist Obama government.

They have already talked about pushing through the Fairness Doctrine. How far will they take this? Radio, yes. Okay, another avenue of dissention falls.

No MSM, no radio.

What about the Internet? Can an Obama Congress redefine "hate speech" to include the objections we have raised here to say, the NCNAACP "Case Description?" Why not?

Do you doubt if they might have silenced the blogs during the Dan Rather fiasco or the Duke Frame...do you think REALLY they would NOT have?

A commentator asks questions about the Obama/Ayers connection and the Campaign wants the Justice Dept invoved?

This does not trouble you?

Biden is quoted as saying there may well be trials for the Bush administration. Like some banana repiblic, we will begin jailing oppositional leaders...till citizens fear opposing the Ruling Faction at all. Do you hate Bush enough to start that as a model in the U.S.?

http://wjno.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=244038&article=4190828

And you are angry at Homeland Security? About loss of privacy and rights? What is the potential here?

Tell me where I'm wrong , and assure me, with examples please , that WHAT I SAW in Durham and N.C....I need not fear from the Left when they control the Presidency, Congress, the Media, the Radio, the Internet, the Justice Dept, and 1/2 of a divided court (God knows what in a few years.)

Please show me how I'm wrong.
Duke09parent. Thank you for your answers and your courtesy. Would you take a stab at these questions of mine. This is not a trick. I am truly curious at how someone who has made this "journey with us" can honestly (and I do believe it is) see this so differently.

Would you help me understand?
Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

duke09parent
Sep 4 2008, 03:19 PM
Quote:
 
And you are angry at Homeland Security? About loss of privacy and rights? What is the potential here?

Tell me where I'm wrong , and assure me, with examples please , that WHAT I SAW in Durham and N.C....I need not fear from the Left when they control the Presidency, Congress, the Media, the Radio, the Internet, the Justice Dept, and 1/2 of a divided court (God knows what in a few years.)

Please show me how I'm wrong.


You're not wrong. That's exactly why the Patriot Act powers are dangerous. When those powers are permitted only political friends of those in charge are safe.

It's not so much a payback for Bush but rather a desire that the least amount of carryover possible from this administration to the next occurs.
I don't believe most of us marry someone...just to spite our old boyfriend.

I think you must have strong affirmative reasons.

What do you expect Obama to do FOR YOU. You have said that you do not believe he will dismantle Homeland Security..just have new people running it. How about somebody who thinks like Houston Baker? How about someone who thinks like Michael Moore? Cornell West? Nifong?

Is that the change...the least amount of carry-over you desire?
Goto Top
 
duke09parent

Jezebelle
Sep 4 2008, 03:14 PM
How has Chief Justice Roberts gone after Roe?

I sincerely hope you reply to my question this time. You did not reply to my last question to you. It's on p.3 of this same thread.
You mean this one?
Quote:
 
By the way, let me ask you a question. Joe Biden used his one of one hundred votes in the senate to vote AGAINST supplying American troops engaged in deadly battle on the battlefield with vitally necessary supplies and equipment. Is that the kind of command decision-making YOU want in the White House?
I didn't answer it because I thought it was a silly question. Was the vote explicitly whether "American troops engaged in deadly battle on the battlefield" should have "vitally necessary supplies and equipment", or is that your interpretation of a war funding bill? The only power an elective body has to stop its executive from continuing a war is to stop the funding for it. Congress kept funding the Vietnam war so LBJ was free to keep it going. If you think a congressional vote that actually cut off funding would leave troops in the field without equipment and bullets then you really are being silly. Immediately following such a vote would be negotiations between the pro and con folks for funding for a pull out or a commitment to pull out in x number of months.

On your last question about Roberts, he hasn't had the chance to go after Roe yet. It is widely believed he would vote to overturn it if and when he gets the chance.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Jezebelle

duke09parent
Sep 4 2008, 03:38 PM
Jezebelle
Sep 4 2008, 03:14 PM
How has Chief Justice Roberts gone after Roe?

I sincerely hope you reply to my question this time. You did not reply to my last question to you. It's on p.3 of this same thread.
You mean this one?
Quote:
 
By the way, let me ask you a question. Joe Biden used his one of one hundred votes in the senate to vote AGAINST supplying American troops engaged in deadly battle on the battlefield with vitally necessary supplies and equipment. Is that the kind of command decision-making YOU want in the White House?
I didn't answer it because I thought it was a silly question. Was the vote explicitly whether "American troops engaged in deadly battle on the battlefield" should have "vitally necessary supplies and equipment", or is that your interpretation of a war funding bill? The only power an elective body has to stop its executive from continuing a war is to stop the funding for it. Congress kept funding the Vietnam war so LBJ was free to keep it going. If you think a congressional vote that actually cut off funding would leave troops in the field without equipment and bullets then you really are being silly. Immediately following such a vote would be negotiations between the pro and con folks for funding for a pull out or a commitment to pull out in x number of months.

On your last question about Roberts, he hasn't had the chance to go after Roe yet. It is widely believed he would vote to overturn it if and when he gets the chance.
So, you reply to one question by belittling it rather than asking for specifics. You reply to another question by basically admitting there are no objective grounds for your opinion. You didn't answer my question asking for specifics about the PA sections. One would assume then, that you have no more specifics to point to in the question about the PA than you do as to Chief Justice Roberts and Roe.

Okay.

Edited by Jezebelle, Sep 4 2008, 03:45 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
duke09parent

Jezebelle
Sep 4 2008, 03:22 PM
Can you point to the sections in the codified Patriot Act that establish police state features that differ from previous law? How would Homeland Security be able to operate in ways contravened by the PA or other law?
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/resources/17343res20031114.html

Edited by duke09parent, Sep 4 2008, 04:23 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Duke09Parent...if at any time you feel comfortable with answering that post of mine...I really just would like the insight into how someone who sees the situation differently from me...might help me see it that way too.

How would you persaude me?

In Durham, there should have been so many safeguards in that Leftist local government, in the media, in the judiciary, in the leftist administration of Duke...all those smart people..to STOP a rogue prosecutor in his tracks.

Instead their leftist agendas made them enablers.

How does this not apply to a leftist President, Congress, Media, et al.

Where am I astray?
Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

This post:

The Left controls the MSM. Who, after the Duke Frame and the Palin family scourging denies that? They cannot be trusted to not enable a State run by their Leftist comrades in arms. They cannot be counted on to bring Truth to power if the power is the Leftist model they are pushing.

So there would be no MSM to challenge a leftist Obama government.

They have already talked about pushing through the Fairness Doctrine. How far will they take this? Radio, yes. Okay, another avenue of dissention falls.

No MSM, no radio.

What about the Internet? Can an Obama Congress redefine "hate speech" to include the objections we have raised here to say, the NCNAACP "Case Description?" Why not?

Do you doubt if they might have silenced the blogs during the Dan Rather fiasco or the Duke Frame...do you think REALLY they would NOT have?

A commentator asks questions about the Obama/Ayers connection and the Campaign wants the Justice Dept invoved?

This does not trouble you?

Biden is quoted as saying there may well be trials for the Bush administration. Like some banana repiblic, we will begin jailing oppositional leaders...till citizens fear opposing the Ruling Faction at all. Do you hate Bush enough to start that as a model in the U.S.?

http://wjno.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=244038&article=4190828

And you are angry at Homeland Security? About loss of privacy and rights? What is the potential here?

Tell me where I'm wrong , and assure me, with examples please , that WHAT I SAW in Durham and N.C....I need not f
Goto Top
 
chatham
Member Avatar

duke09parent
Sep 3 2008, 04:06 PM

I disagree with her and McCAin on their anti-choice position on abortion and her abstinence-only position on sex education.
I would hope the above comment would not sway anyone in one direction or another about voting for a strong candidate. As unstable as the world is today, and tomorrow, it is almost laughable to consider abortion and sex education issues as important when one side of the debate has already promised to reduce our ability to defend ourselves now and reduce research funding and discovery so we are unable to defend ourselves in the future.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

You do not want the government to interfere with your right to end a pregnancy, your "choice." But you will enable government to interfere with my ability to express my opinion, be free from a political prosecution just to placate certain voting blocs? My ability to believe that my son need not fear being indicted on an allegation and no evidence...causing months of anquish and stress..because certain historical sensitivities must be more important THAN THE FACTS.

That "book covers" may cost me my job. That stating on air information about an Ayers-Obama connection may cost me the financial and legal burdens of a Justice Dept. investigation.

Please help me see this differently.

Please help me not think of the philsophical ascendancy of the Houston Bakers, the Bob Ashleys, The Wahneema Lubiamos, the Richard Brodheads, the Rev Wrights, the Amanda Marcottes.

Help!
Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic »
Locked Topic