posted on December 5, 2000 11:11:40 PM
Inference. I said, "Most Democrats I know"....If I had said, "Most Democrats" then I could see the misunderstanding. I was making a statement based on personal experience to another person who made a blanket statement about an issue I find troubling. I didn't infer anything other than what I said. I'll be a little more clear for your benefit, Most Democrats I know personally are pro-choice, anti-death penalty, these are only the handful I personally know, the millions of Democrats I do not personally know may not believe in or support the same thing the handful of democrats I personally know believe. I didn't infer anything with my post, I am not all knowing and do not wish to be all knowing. In the future I will make my posts painfully clear so I will not confuse anyone here at AW.
posted on December 5, 2000 11:16:55 PMYour party supports the death penalty but hates abortion. Sorry death is death.
Death is death, but execution of convicted murderers isn't abortion of fetuses. No matter which side of the fence you sit, intellectaul honesty demands that you ackowledge there is a huuuuuuge distinction. The two are wholly unrelated issues.
posted on December 5, 2000 11:47:49 PM
Abortion and the death penalty most certainly are related.
The death penalty kills innocent people too. Look at all the people who have recently been found innocent while on death row.
The sad fact is that many innocent people have been executed and will never have their cases reviewed.
No lawyer pursues the interests of dead people.
However, the death penalty is clearly part of the social contract. The problem is, our system is ill equiped to carry it out. Our justice system isn't just, and it does not devine truth. No one should be under penalty of death is this system.
For all you folks pandering for judges to over turn Roe v Wade, better think twice about it- the Roe case was not about announcing whether abotion was right or wrong, it announced that abortion is out of the perview of the government.
If it is within the power of the government to tell you can not have an abortion, then it is also within the powers of the government to demand that you will have an abortion. The latter point is the one you had better think long and hard about.
Justice Blackmun and those who sided with his opinion were very wise in the Roe case. These Justices knew from a string of cases [ even a case making it against the law to sell condoms in one city] that if the government began exercising power in these reproductive issues, there was no limit to what the government could demand- even demanding that a woman must have an abortion. These wise Justices also knew from previous cases that the government was performing forced sterilizations. The Roe case wasn't about abortion being a good or bad thing, it was a line drawn getting the government out of one of the most personal aspects of an individual's life.
If you want a government that controls and intervenes in your reproductive interests, go to China, because what goes on there is what an overturning of Roe v Wade will produce.
posted on December 5, 2000 11:57:52 PMWhile he is here frequently depicted as some idiot, he has naturally achieved far more than probably any one posting on this board.
I would argue that he achieved none of this "naturally", but artificially. A cultivated silver-spoon-in-mouth, tailor made to fill the template laid out for him (go to this prep school, then to this University, then to that one, etc. etc.) can achieve far more than one of us "regular" folks who have far less resources at our disposal. However, all of that is irrelevant, re. our achievements, as none of us here presumes that we are worthy to stand in the company of Washintgon, Jefferson or Lincoln. Our resume is not important, but this Bush guy's is.
That he got the Republican nomination is not unsuprising if you consider how it actually came about. He had a name that was recognized in polls that were taken among likely Republican voters two years ago, asking whom they would prefer to see as the next GOP presidential nominee. Consistently, these polls reflected that likely Republican voters would prefer to have a guy named "Bush" receive the 2000 nomination than a "John McWho??" or "Bill Bradley". See, the name "Bush" is meaningful to Republicans. It rang a bell. He polled well, so he got the money. Were the big donors going to sponsor the longer shot? He got the money, he got to project himself in all sorts of areas where John McCain, who many agree that Gore couldn't possibly have defeated, could not. The GOP got excited because he was slaughtering the opposition, but lost sight of the obvious question, "was Bush getting the money because he was such a vibrant candidate, or did he just appear (initially) to be a breath of fresh air because he had the money to present himself that way"?
Then, of course, as the country got to see who Bush is, as the months rolled on, after the GOP cast its lot with him, why, it turned out that he was a featherweight! Hey, he could barely speak English! He has no ideas of his own. Uh-oh. Too late. He was their man, like it or not.
The consolation prize: he is a conventional GOP platform wet dream. He'll do exactly what the party wants him to do. McCain was enough of a free thinker that it, if you'll remember, scared them, and they were forced to call McCain a Liberal and let his campaign wither away.
With The death penalty kills innocent people too. Look at all the people who have recently been found innocent while on death row
you are condemning the criminal justice system of which the death penalty is but a part. There are, I'm sure, far more innocent people incarcerated than are executed; the lengthy appeals process afforded the condemned to die assists in that smaller percentage. Convictions in error are the problem to address, not the resultant penalty.
With the advances in DNA comparison errors in prosecution will be reduced, as well as sure convictions will be increased.
The publicity surrounding a case in which a person condemned to death is exonerated focus greater attention on death penalty cases than is given those cases in which a person is released from responsibility for lesser crimes.
posted on December 6, 2000 01:23:18 AM
It looks like there are already tensions developing in getting a Bush cabinet together. The problem? That flaming liberal, Colin Powell.
Seems like he's promoting a moderate Republican, Gov. Ridge, for Secretary of Defense. Conservative Republicans are reportedly mounting an aggessive campaign to have more conservative Republicans considered instead. And, not being fools, the Conservative Republicans are pitching their lobbying efforts at Dick Cheney.
As soon as Colin Powell was (sort of) announced as the prospective Secretary of State, there were predictions that there'd be conflict between him and Cheney. I wonder if Bush and Cheney would have been so quick to get Powell on board if not for the need to curry public opinion in the post-election period. It'll be interesting to see how long Powell stays in the administration, if there ever is one.
posted on December 6, 2000 05:15:08 AM
Well, beans, I saw on the news this morning that Bush was interviewed on 60 Minutes II last night. Who the hell watches that?
I have to assume he's afraid to face the first string: Wallace, Stahl, Bradley, Kroft and Safer.
Leslie Stahl was a pit bull in her interview with Gore. I've never seen her so aggressive.
posted on December 6, 2000 11:40:02 AM
Bush did decline the invitation on 60 Minutes, but apparently only the original 60 Minutes (Sunday). You know, the one with the heavyweight correspondents.
If I remember right, Wallace & Co. were opposed to and refused to be involved with the 60 MinutesII (Tuesdays).
I've never watched it, and have no idea who the correspondents are on the sequel.
I didn't recognize the interviewer when they showed it on the news this morning.
That was so like Bush to grant the interview to the lightweights.
posted on December 6, 2000 11:41:13 AM
donny - Don't buy into any perceptions of dispute between Dick Cheney and Colin Powell. Trust me on this one, they are close friends and view a lot of things in an identical manner. Also remember that when Colin Powell was CJCS. Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense. Hence both men are well prepared for their respective roles in advising a Bush on matters.
Don't be surprised if they don't dig up Stormin Norm and the whole team will be put back together again.
On the statement Powell staying in the adminsitration. He'll be there because first and foremost, he is a good soldier. And all good soldiers know that you might not agree with the orders handed to you. And you might not like the leaders above you. But you serve because deep down you realize that if you don't some idiot that rubber stamps every thing the idiot above you says will be chosen to replace you.
posted on December 6, 2000 04:37:05 PM
Just thought of something...thought I'd toss it out
Someone convicted of murder-has had a trial..appeals..etc. Everything possible has most likely been tried to save him from the consequences of his voluntary act of murder.
An unborn child doesn't get a trial. Just because they can't 'speak' doesn't mean they don't feel pain when aborted...especially PARTIAL BIRTH abortion/murder.
They put animals out of their misery much more humanely than unborn babies.
You can go to jail for animal abuse..but slaughtering your own child as long as it is still in the womb is ok because it is your body and you can do what you want to it.
I agree, you can do what you want with YOUR body...anything...but the babies' body' is not YOUR body.
posted on December 6, 2000 08:17:20 PM
No one said GW was JFK..nope...we were talking about how AWFUL having a name and using it for gain was...ooops..I forgot..it's only wrong if the Republicans do it!
Of course...Uara they have to point out spelling errors...totally ignoring your real point.
posted on December 6, 2000 08:34:14 PM
Oh, hogwash. JFK was operating at other disadvantages, namely that he was Catholic and actually had to inform a group of Southern pastors (I'm not sure if this was a formal group with a name or not) that he was not planning on having a direct line to the pope in Rome in the Oval Office, awaiting orders on how to operate as president. His "name" back then was not as "good" a name as the Bush name. That the Kennedy name is a comporably "good" name now is due largely to him (and his legend) as well as a relaxing of old prejudices in the United States.
[ edited by jamesoblivion on Dec 6, 2000 08:35 PM ]
posted on December 6, 2000 08:40:43 PMfountainhouseI'm surprised you would even attempt such a comparison. I won't insult the readers of this thread by listing the numerous and glaring dissimilarities.
You seemed very upset with GW because of daddy's money and using the name. I just wanted to point out a little known family called the Kennedy's that the exact same argument could be applied to. More so in JFK's case, he used daddy's money to live on, run on, and even purchase votes with. They make jokes about Bush appointing his brother as a cabinet member. Maybe GW could make history by appointing his brother as attorney general... oops... too late that's been done.
The only reason it isn't fair to compare anything to Kennedy is because he's a saint.
Your same arguments you've given against Bushs could be applied to the Kennedys.
posted on December 6, 2000 09:03:34 PM
The Kennedys! Don't you mean "Americas Royalty"? I do not care for the Kennedy clan myself and do not believe that JFK was a great president. Indeed he very nearly got us all killed during the Cuban crisis. I believe people would view his presidency differently if he had not been assassinated. Getting assassinated always bestows sainthood.
I do believe that the Bush family wants to be the Republican version of the Kennedys. Just what we need, more royalty!!!! ARGH! I thought that was why we fought the Revoloutionary war.
posted on December 6, 2000 09:10:54 PM
What a silly thing to be arguing about. If I had a valuable name, I'd trade on it in a second; Who wouldn't? And where's the shame in that?
posted on December 6, 2000 09:43:09 PM
If you're going to quote me, uaru, at least try to get it right.
...and his shamelessness in trading on his family name
is what I said.
There's no mention of "Daddy's money," or anything close to it. The obvious reason is that virtually every presidential candidate in recent times has come from a privileged background. The election system that creates this necessity is the subject of another thread.
As far as trading on family heritage, I'll let you tell me whose name has/had more bankability: the son of an ambassador, or the son of a former U.S. President? Don't think for a minute that Dubya doesn't know it, too; he's exploited seemingly every opportunity to line his pocket with it.
JFK had more ambition, drive, intellect, compassion, and class in his little finger than in 100 shrubs.
posted on December 6, 2000 09:45:42 PM
Look at the exploits of Ted Kennedy and if that isn't proof of the magic of the name then nothing is.
The Kennedy name is such that in Massachusetts it is instant election. In the late 50s a stockroom worker at a razor factory got himself elected as state treasurer simply by putting himself on the ballot, his name was John F. Kennedy. Voters saw the name and said 'sure'. His total campaign cost were $150.00 most of which was spent for an election night victory. Treasurer Kennedy drove around the state in a chauffer-driven limousine and appointed many of his relatives to state appointment.
posted on December 6, 2000 11:05:58 PM
"You had your chance, Donny."
Yes, I did, and I blew it by choosing my parents unwisely.
My name has never been worth a plugged nickel, and I'll pass that same legacy onto my son. He can continue the family tradition of cursing his ancestors, starting at me and going backwards.
posted on December 8, 2000 07:28:15 PM
In response to the poster that said earlier "Now before either of you run to the Abortion issue. Your party supports the death penalty but hates abortion. Sorry death is death." --Abortions kill an innocent child every single time. It is evil. The death penalty kills a guilty person (an eye for an eye). True, sometimes the executed are proven innocent after the execution, but that goes off on another problem.
reamond, about your comments about overturning Roe vs. Wade, and having our nation turn into a China where women were forced to have abortions... How come then American women weren't forced to have abortions before killing the unborn was legalized?
Also your comment, "If it is within the power of the government to tell you can not have an abortion, then it is also within the powers of the government to demand that you will have an abortion." doesn't make any sense. If you can't have an abortion, you must have an abortion. Sorry, but it sounds like one of those pro-abortion smoke screens designed to distract from the truth that abortion is the murder of an innocent child.
