Real issues being covered! Not one mention of Slow Boats!

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » August 26, 2004, 12:39 pm

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... ertainment

Here's what the Republicans are talking about...

Alabama Gov. Bob Riley told a Republican breakfast that President Bush's re-election will change the U.S. Supreme Court, described by the governor as "very liberal." Riley said because the next president could appoint up to three Supreme Court justices, the coming years could be a turning point for the Republican Party if Bush is re-elected.

Here's what the Democrats are talking about...

Republicans are suggesting that Sen. Tom Harkin has been pulled from a campaign swing for Sen. John Kerry for calling Vice President Dick Cheney a "coward."

Kerry's campaign in Wisconsin had been publicizing a four-day "Tour of Honor" featuring Harkin, former Sen. Max Cleland and other veterans. Harkin was to speak in Eau Claire on Thursday but withdrew for "logistical reasons," said Lesley Sillaman of Kerry's Wisconsin campaign.

She denied that Harkin was "pulled from the lineup," as Republicans suggested.

"Not at all. That's absolutely not the truth," Sillaman said.

Harkin on Friday said he was unaware of any tour with Cleland, stood by his remarks about Cheney and said he will continue to speak out whenever Republicans "impugn the honor and integrity of a veteran."

The Republicans are playing to their base while the Democrats are still in reactionary mode trying to prove they would be strong on defense.

Yes, I realize this was one single news article. I was just tickled as the clear difference in approaches and strategies.

Sidenote: The bit about the Supreme Court plays big among conservatives. It may be one of the biggest "real" issues of the election.

Sidenote_2: Why is this stuff buried in an Entertainment headline?

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 26, 2004, 12:47 pm

The appointment of 3 supreme judges is actually one of he issues that worries me the most.. and although he might pull in some conservative votes with that, he will also scare away some people who, although they might be republican, disagree on issues like abortion etc.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » August 26, 2004, 12:51 pm

Well right this moment John Kerry is giving a speech in Minnesota talking about Prescription Drug costs, and medicare not being able to use its market power to negotiate cheaper drug costs by buying in bulk. That of course was specifically prohibited by the President's plan which is a massive windfall for the Pharmaceutical industry.

An hour ago i saw George Bush talking about Health Care costs in New Mexico and talking about the rising costs. He talked about trial lawyers driving the price of malpractice premiums up, and being on the side of doctors and patients. I certainly think malpractice premiums are a very real problem that needs to be addressed, but the fault does not lie entirely with the lawyers. There are a couple of states that have caps on lawsuits for medical claims, the idea is to drive down the cost of malpractice insurance. It has not gone down in those states. I believe California is one.

I think the insurance companies (one of the most profitible industries going) also bears some of the burden here.

but both candidates are discussing real issues for sure today, and quite honestly have been almost everyday. THe candidates almost never do the dirty work themselves, they send out surrogates to talk about the other BS =)

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » August 26, 2004, 5:49 pm

If Dubya is re-elected theres at least a 70% chance that all abortion rights will be destroyed
keep that in mind on nov.2nd

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » August 26, 2004, 6:12 pm

Xzion wrote:If Dubya is re-elected theres at least a 70% chance that all abortion rights will be destroyed
keep that in mind on nov.2nd

And I'd say at least a 40% chance that Democracy and/or America will too.

-=Lohrno

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » August 26, 2004, 7:18 pm

Alabama Gov. Bob Riley told a Republican breakfast that President Bush's re-election will change the U.S. Supreme Court, described by the governor as "very liberal."

But that's just wrong. The current court is conservative. 7 of the 9 justices are republican appointees. Souter and Stevens have flipped on the GOP and gone (mostly) liberal, but the makeup of the court is currently:

3 strong conservatives (Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas)
2 weak conservatives (Kennedy, O'Connor)
2 republican-appointed liberal types (Souter, Stevens)
2 liberals (Ginsburg, Breyer)

It should also be noted that, by and large (and excepting Thomas), the conservative judges on the Court are more active and vocal than the liberals. Claiming that the Court is "very liberal" is just ridiculous.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » August 26, 2004, 7:58 pm

Sueven wrote:
Alabama Gov. Bob Riley told a Republican breakfast that President Bush's re-election will change the U.S. Supreme Court, described by the governor as "very liberal."
But that's just wrong. The current court is conservative. 7 of the 9 justices are republican appointees. Souter and Stevens have flipped on the GOP and gone (mostly) liberal, but the makeup of the court is currently:

3 strong conservatives (Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas)
2 weak conservatives (Kennedy, O'Connor)
2 republican-appointed liberal types (Souter, Stevens)
2 liberals (Ginsburg, Breyer)

It should also be noted that, by and large (and excepting Thomas), the conservative judges on the Court are more active and vocal than the liberals. Claiming that the Court is "very liberal" is just ridiculous.

The person claiming that the supreme court is "very liberal" probrably thinks conservative means "anti bill of rights/anti civil rights/anti ACLU/put the dirty niggers back on the cotton fields and send the dirty spics on rafts back to cuba" granted that he is from Alabama.
I can see GW appointing Jerry Falwell on the supreme court...if he does that forget Iraq, someone will need to liberate us!

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » August 26, 2004, 8:19 pm

It does not matter on the issue of abortion, you will not see Roe v Wade overturned in a significant manner in the US. Because if you do they will reverse as soon as the casualty counts start to come in from women dying in back alleys.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » August 26, 2004, 9:23 pm

Kylere wrote:It does not matter on the issue of abortion, you will not see Roe v Wade overturned in a significant manner in the US. Because if you do they will reverse as soon as the casualty counts start to come in from women dying in back alleys.

Drugs are still illigal, hence innocent people are killed due being involved in bad drug deals daily...but of course neocons dont give a shit about innocent people being murdered as long as they opress the public with there ignorant-religious backed "morals"
Thats why people like Bush are opposed to roe v wade, despite using common sence and taking into consdieration what you said. Of course this is also the asshole who puts partial bans on revolutionary scientific reaserch.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » August 26, 2004, 10:00 pm

Xzion wrote:
Kylere wrote:It does not matter on the issue of abortion, you will not see Roe v Wade overturned in a significant manner in the US. Because if you do they will reverse as soon as the casualty counts start to come in from women dying in back alleys.
Drugs are still illigal, hence innocent people are killed due being involved in bad drug deals daily...but of course neocons dont give a shit about innocent people being murdered as long as they opress the public with there ignorant-religious backed "morals"
Thats why people like Bush are opposed to roe v wade, despite using common sence and taking into consdieration what you said. Of course this is also the asshole who puts partial bans on revolutionary scientific reaserch.

What is really funny is that any men are allowed to make decisions regarding abortion. But the real deal is that you will not see it change in our lifetimes, and if it does, I will be glad to go find some militia group, break out the CLP and clean my AR15, drop on my M16A1 lower reciever and prepare for a second American revolution. I think you will find that many people who are conservative are not also anti civil rights. Regardless of the rhetoric that Bush spews it is about as believable as thinking Kerry will make oil cheap, stop all wars, create jobs, and save the puppies. Because when it all comes down to it, just as many republican families are having teenage daughters having abortions as democrats families. Is is hypocrritical to speak against something you privately support? yeppers, and both candidates do it, Kerry understands stem cell research as well as Bush understands the first amendment.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » August 26, 2004, 10:14 pm

Xzion wrote:If Dubya is re-elected theres at least a 70% chance that all abortion rights will be destroyed
keep that in mind on nov.2nd

great Chalk one vote from me

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » August 26, 2004, 10:22 pm

Little David was in his 4th grade class when the teacher asked the children what their fathers did for a living. All the typical answers came up-fireman, policeman, salesman, doctor, lawyer, etc.

David was being uncharacteristically quiet, so the teacher asked him about his father.

"My father's an exotic dancer in a gay cabaret and takes off all his clothes in front of other men and they put money in his underwear. Sometimes, if the offer is really good, he will go home with some guy and make love with him for money. "

The teacher, obviously shaken by this statement, hurriedly set the other children to work on some exercises and took little David aside to ask him, "Is that really true about your father?"

"No," said David, "He works for the Democratic National Committee to elect John Kerry, but I was too embarrassed to say that in front of the other kids.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » August 26, 2004, 10:24 pm

Whats the punchline?

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » August 26, 2004, 11:01 pm

Kylere wrote:
Xzion wrote:
Kylere wrote:It does not matter on the issue of abortion, you will not see Roe v Wade overturned in a significant manner in the US. Because if you do they will reverse as soon as the casualty counts start to come in from women dying in back alleys.
Drugs are still illigal, hence innocent people are killed due being involved in bad drug deals daily...but of course neocons dont give a shit about innocent people being murdered as long as they opress the public with there ignorant-religious backed "morals"
Thats why people like Bush are opposed to roe v wade, despite using common sence and taking into consdieration what you said. Of course this is also the asshole who puts partial bans on revolutionary scientific reaserch.
What is really funny is that any men are allowed to make decisions regarding abortion. But the real deal is that you will not see it change in our lifetimes, and if it does, I will be glad to go find some militia group, break out the CLP and clean my AR15, drop on my M16A1 lower reciever and prepare for a second American revolution. I think you will find that many people who are conservative are not also anti civil rights. Regardless of the rhetoric that Bush spews it is about as believable as thinking Kerry will make oil cheap, stop all wars, create jobs, and save the puppies. Because when it all comes down to it, just as many republican families are having teenage daughters having abortions as democrats families. Is is hypocrritical to speak against something you privately support? yeppers, and both candidates do it, Kerry understands stem cell research as well as Bush understands the first amendment.

I believe the supreme court atm is 5 for abortion rights and 4 against. From what i have heard one of the abortion rights judges is retiring and who do you think Bush is going to put in there?
Also if by chance the republicans win more seats in the senate, as well as a re-election it is unfortunatly a very, very bitter, yet true reality that this right will be taken away from us.

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » August 26, 2004, 11:22 pm

O'Connor is the one that is going to retire, she is pretty much middle of the road, I wouldn't count her in either catagory. She is pro-abortion rights and has stayed thru the 1st Bush term in order to maintain those rights she beleives in, but she has also said she will not stay another term

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » August 27, 2004, 1:21 am

There's also a rumor that, when asked why he declined to overturn Roe v Wade in Casey v Planned Parenthood, Kennedy told an aide "I want to save the republican party." Who knows if it's true, but the point is clear: overturning Roe would be the fastest way possible to catapult liberals to power in this country.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 27, 2004, 1:33 am

Read my mangina lips: Roe v Wade will not be overturned.

Even in the republican party there is only a subset that want it overturned. It's political suicide.

You'd see the biggest demonstrations ever held. I'd go buy a pair of Birkenstocks and join the march myself.

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » August 27, 2004, 12:11 pm

Xzion wrote:If Dubya is re-elected theres at least a 70% chance that all abortion rights will be destroyed
keep that in mind on nov.2nd

Where do you come up with this stuff? I'm serious. I read a lot. The overwhelming consensus of even conservative observers is that Roe v. Wade is almost as sacrosanct as the 1st Amendment.

Thess · Post by **Thess** » August 27, 2004, 12:29 pm

The last supreme court vote on overturning Roe vs. Wade was 5-4. In my opinion that's to close for comfort, being allowed to appoint antwhere from 2-4 anti-choice judges will overturn Roe vs. Wade.

From naral.org

Fact Sheets and Reports on Pending Bush Judicial Nominees

United States Circuit Court Nominees

Claude Allen, nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

As the number two official at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, helped to extend legal recognition of embryos and fetuses and continues to promote abstinence-unless-married programs, which censor discussion of contraception. As a public official in Virginia, Allen supported several restrictions on the right to choose; and as a spokesman for Jesse Helms, Allen compared abortion to genocide. Allen’s nomination has not yet been voted on by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Priscilla Owen, Nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Repeatedly tried to rewrite Texas law from the bench in order to deny young women their right to choose. Owen’s nomination is currently being filibustered.

* Fact Sheet
* The Renomination of Priscilla Owen: Unprecedented and Divisive
* Pre-Hearing Report
* Post-Hearing Analysis
* Post-Second Hearing Response
* The States of the Fifth Circuit: A Clear and Present Danger to Reproductive Choice

Carolyn Kuhl, Nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Working in the Reagan Department of Justice, urged the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. Kuhl’s nomination is currently being filibustered.

* Fact Sheet
* Report
* Letter of Opposition

William H. Myers, Nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

*
Pre-Hearing Letter of Concern

William H. Pryor, Jr., Recess-appointed by George W. Bush to sit on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit until Congress adjourns in the fall of 2005.

Recently reaffirmed his position that that Roe v. Wade was "the worst abomination in the history of constitutional law." Defying strong Senate opposition, including a successful filibuster, President Bush recess-appointed Pryor on February 20, 2004, which means he will sit on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals until Congress adjourns in the fall of 2005. Pryor's nomination for a lifetime appointment remains pending before the Senate.

* Fact Sheet
* Report
* Letter of Opposition

Charles W. Pickering, Sr., Recess-appointed by George W. Bush to sit on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit until the current Congress adjourns in October of 2004.

Led the Republican Party to respond to Roe v. Wade with an anti-choice plank to the party platform calling for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to ban abortion. Defying strong Senate opposition, President Bush recess-appointed Pickering on January 16, 2004, which means he will sit on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals until the Congress next adjourns, scheduled for October of 2004. Pickering’s nomination for a lifetime appointment remains pending before the Senate.

*
Fact Sheet
* Report
* The States of the Fifth Circuit: A Clear and Present Danger to Reproductive Choice

Janice Rogers Brown, Nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

As a justice on the California Supreme Court, demonstrated her opposition to a woman’s right to privacy when she wrote a caustic dissent to a decision that declared a California abortion restriction unconstitutional. In contrast to the majority of justices, Brown would have given a very narrow reading to the privacy provision of the California Constitution. Brown’s nomination is currently being filibustered.

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » August 27, 2004, 12:35 pm

Thess wrote:naral.org

Isn't that like me using Rush Limbaugh material to support a contention?

Thess · Post by **Thess** » August 27, 2004, 12:39 pm

No, Naral has factual information to base it's stance on abortion issues.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » August 27, 2004, 12:44 pm

Thess wrote:No, Naral has factual information to base it's stance on abortion issues.

Ohh I like there slogan " Factual information For Liberals By Liberals "

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » August 27, 2004, 1:06 pm

Thess wrote:No, Naral has factual information to base it's stance on abortion issues.

Wonderful!

Is that innocence I detect? Or gullibility?

Thess · Post by **Thess** » August 27, 2004, 1:40 pm

Metanis wrote:
Thess wrote:No, Naral has factual information to base it's stance on abortion issues.
Wonderful!

Is that innocence I detect? Or gullibility?

Not either, my sister worked for naral for quite a few years. Why not prove the information on those judges wrong rather then just saying it is wrong - of course there are other judges who could possibly be appointed.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » August 27, 2004, 7:14 pm

For those that are kind of slow about the way things work... It does not matter what you do prior to being selected to the Supreme Court, once in, it is lifetime and no one can kick you out.

People tend to vote conscious rather than politically then, I read a great book many moons ago about the number of Supreme Court selections that went against their prior stances and so many of them did it was amazing.