| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Clave" |
| Date: |
09 Oct 2004 08:39:33 PM |
| Object: |
Dred Scott == Roe v. Wade |
From http://fairshot.typepad.com/fairshot/2004/10/dred_scott_roe_.html :
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some people seem to be a bit boggled by Bush's Dred Scott remark last night. It
wasn't about racism or slavery, or just Bush's natural incoherence. Here's what
Bush actually said:
If elected to another term, I promise that I will nominate Supreme
Court Justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade.
Bush couldn't say that in plain language, because it would freak out every
moderate swing voter in the country, but he can say it in code, to make sure
that his base will turn out for him. Anti-choice advocates have been comparing
Roe v. Wade with Dred Scott v. Sandford for some time now. There is a constant
drumbeat on the religious right to compare the contemporary culture war over
abortion with the 19th century fight over slavery, with the anti-choicers cast
in the role of the abolitionists.
Don't believe me? Here.
http://tinyurl.com/45z9u
Further, Bush has to describe Dred Scott as about wrongheaded personal beliefs,
rather than a fairly constricted constitutional interpretation because he needs
to paint Roe v. Wade the same way, and he wants "strict constructionists" in the
Supreme Court, so he can't really talk about the actual rationale used in Dred
Scott.
I can't emphasize enough how important this is, and how much it needs to be
publicized.
.
|
|
| User: "Uncle Dollar Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: Dred Scott == My favorite porn star |
10 Oct 2004 04:40:42 AM |
|
|
<snip>
Sorry, couldn't resist. :-# The gremlins made me do it, really they did. Do a
Google image search on the name - "safe search" most _definitely_ off - and see
for yourself. The dude is _fine_... ;-)
--
L8r,
Uncle Dollar Bill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yang, AthD h.c" |
|
| Title: Re: Dred Scott == My favorite porn star |
10 Oct 2004 02:57:00 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 09:40:42 GMT, (Uncle
Dollar Bill) wrote:
<snip>
Sorry, couldn't resist. :-# The gremlins made me do it, really they did. Do a
Google image search on the name - "safe search" most _definitely_ off - and see
for yourself. The dude is _fine_... ;-)
That's an actual porn star name? Yikes!
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -1068 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dale" |
|
| Title: Re: Dred Scott == Roe v. Wade |
09 Oct 2004 09:59:20 PM |
|
|
"Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
news:LL2dnSzIkPMED_XcRVn-iw@cablespeedwa.com...
From http://fairshot.typepad.com/fairshot/2004/10/dred_scott_roe_.html :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Some people seem to be a bit boggled by Bush's Dred Scott remark last
night. It
wasn't about racism or slavery, or just Bush's natural incoherence. Here's
what
Bush actually said:
If elected to another term, I promise that I will nominate Supreme
Court Justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade.
Bush couldn't say that in plain language, because it would freak out every
moderate swing voter in the country, but he can say it in code, to make
sure
that his base will turn out for him. Anti-choice advocates have been
comparing
Roe v. Wade with Dred Scott v. Sandford for some time now. There is a
constant
drumbeat on the religious right to compare the contemporary culture war
over
abortion with the 19th century fight over slavery, with the anti-choicers
cast
in the role of the abolitionists.
Don't believe me? Here.
http://tinyurl.com/45z9u
Further, Bush has to describe Dred Scott as about wrongheaded personal
beliefs,
rather than a fairly constricted constitutional interpretation because he
needs
to paint Roe v. Wade the same way, and he wants "strict constructionists"
in the
Supreme Court, so he can't really talk about the actual rationale used in
Dred
Scott.
I can't emphasize enough how important this is, and how much it needs to
be
publicized.
Wow, thanks for pointing that out. It makes sense. I know some far-right
christians and yes, they do come up with some weird, coded stuff amongst
themselves.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clave" |
|
| Title: Re: Dred Scott == Roe v. Wade |
09 Oct 2004 10:15:33 PM |
|
|
"Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net> wrote in message
news:cA1ad.3833$q%7.2936@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
"Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
news:LL2dnSzIkPMED_XcRVn-iw@cablespeedwa.com...
<...>
Further, Bush has to describe Dred Scott as about wrongheaded personal
beliefs, rather than a fairly constricted constitutional interpretation
because he needs to paint Roe v. Wade the same way, and he wants "strict
constructionists" in the Supreme Court, so he can't really talk about
the actual rationale used in Dred Scott.
I can't emphasize enough how important this is, and how much it needs to
be publicized.
Wow, thanks for pointing that out. It makes sense. I know some far-right
christians and yes, they do come up with some weird, coded stuff amongst
themselves.
Yeah, it flew under my radar at the time as well. But after reading the article
and some of the stuff that search brought up, it's hard to see it as anything
else.
Jim
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Dred Scott == Roe v. Wade |
10 Oct 2004 03:54:18 AM |
|
|
"Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net> wrote in message news:<cA1ad.3833$q%7.2936@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>...
"Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
news:LL2dnSzIkPMED_XcRVn-iw@cablespeedwa.com...
From http://fairshot.typepad.com/fairshot/2004/10/dred_scott_roe_.html :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Some people seem to be a bit boggled by Bush's Dred Scott remark last
night. It
wasn't about racism or slavery, or just Bush's natural incoherence. Here's
what
Bush actually said:
If elected to another term, I promise that I will nominate Supreme
Court Justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade.
Bush couldn't say that in plain language, because it would freak out every
moderate swing voter in the country, but he can say it in code, to make
sure
that his base will turn out for him. Anti-choice advocates have been
comparing
Roe v. Wade with Dred Scott v. Sandford for some time now. There is a
constant
drumbeat on the religious right to compare the contemporary culture war
over
abortion with the 19th century fight over slavery, with the anti-choicers
cast
in the role of the abolitionists.
Don't believe me? Here.
http://tinyurl.com/45z9u
Further, Bush has to describe Dred Scott as about wrongheaded personal
beliefs,
rather than a fairly constricted constitutional interpretation because he
needs
to paint Roe v. Wade the same way, and he wants "strict constructionists"
in the
Supreme Court, so he can't really talk about the actual rationale used in
Dred
Scott.
I can't emphasize enough how important this is, and how much it needs to
be
publicized.
Wow, thanks for pointing that out. It makes sense. I know some far-right
christians and yes, they do come up with some weird, coded stuff amongst
themselves.
Why would they need codes? Christian fundamentalists are openly saying it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Shel Scott WellDone" |
|
| Title: More silly Dem propaganda (was: Dred Scott == Roe v. Wade |
10 Oct 2004 01:39:42 PM |
|
|
"Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> wrote:
<snip>
Here's what Bush actually said:
If elected to another term, I promise that I will nominate Supreme
Court Justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade.
<snip>
Oh, yes, just like the Repubs are going to reinstate the draft, and if
you don't believe that, just look at the bill introduced BY THE
DEMOCRATS. The dems are full of ***** as usual.
--
): "I may make you feel, but I can't make you think" :(
(: Off the monitor, through the modem, nothing but net :)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clave" |
|
| Title: Re: More silly Dem propaganda (was: Dred Scott == Roe v. Wade |
10 Oct 2004 11:15:08 PM |
|
|
"Shel Scott" <WellDone> wrote in message
news:o60jm09dd27idasfh1bjkkqi25d6je6ba7@4ax.com...
"Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> wrote:
<snip>
Here's what Bush actually said:
If elected to another term, I promise that I will nominate Supreme
Court Justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade.
<snip>
Oh, yes, just like the Repubs are going to reinstate the draft, and if
you don't believe that, just look at the bill introduced BY THE
DEMOCRATS. The dems are full of ***** as usual.
Wow. Your logic and supporting cites sure blew away his logic and supporting
cites.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "GaryW" |
|
| Title: Re: More silly Dem propaganda (was: Dred Scott == Roe v. Wade |
11 Oct 2004 11:01:03 AM |
|
|
Clave wrote...
Shel Scott wrote...
Clave wrote:
<snip>
Here's what Bush actually said:
If elected to another term, I promise that I will nominate Supreme
Court Justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade.
<snip>
Oh, yes, just like the Repubs are going to reinstate the draft, and if
you don't believe that, just look at the bill introduced BY THE
DEMOCRATS. The dems are full of ***** as usual.
Wow. Your logic and supporting cites sure blew away his logic and
supporting cites.
Here's what he's referring to, Jim:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/07/rangel.draft/
Now, understand Rangel's bill basically madates a minimum of 2 years service
in either the armed forces or some form of alternative community service.
But more importantly, Mr. Scott apparently didn't read the fine print: the
purpose of Rangel's bill was to even the playing field insofar as who fights
in a war. Right now, a disporportionate number of minorities do virtually
all the fighting. Heck, only 1 member of Congress has a son or daughter
fighting overseas.
GW
"Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?"-Florence, S.C.,
Jan. 11, 2000
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Doorman" |
|
| Title: The vile spewers of mindless blather thread |
10 Oct 2004 06:08:32 PM |
|
|
If you are a fellow American patriot and lover of the First Amendment, then
by these presents greetings. It is good that you seek rational and
democratic discussion of the great and urgent issues facing our nation.
Unfortunately, I think you've come to the wrong place. See the bottom of
this post for additional evidence--but this entire enormous thread is
dedicated to the display of the freshest original parts of such disruptive
anti-democratic tripe. With the witless assistance of the Bushevik trolls,
it only took a short time to build this "tower of babble".
Especially if you remember the old days of rational discussion in the
newsgroups, this triumph of noise over signal may sadden you. Hyde Park of
the world and cheap advertising are all that remain.
However, there are still alternatives. For example, there are many moderated
forums on the Internet where civil discussions and real conversations can be
found. Even better if you can build bridges to real people in the physical
world. For example, you could treat a rational RINO to a movie--like
Fahrenheit 9/11. Lots of good books still being published, or you could
write a letter to the editor for your local paper--you'll reach more real
people and have more impact than here. Or you could donate to the political
campaigns--I confess I've already made six donations. Just remember that big
money is harming democracy, that BushCo has more money than anyone, and that
if money alone decides elections then the American republic is already dead.
Last, but MOST important: VOTE! Your nation needs you NOW!
On the other hand, if you are a Bushevik troll, then in the immortal
floor-of-the-Senate words of the unloved ***** Cheney: "Go ***** yourself."
That mentality goes a long way towards explaining blather like this:
Shel Scott <WellDone> wrote:
<snip>
Oh, yes, just like the Repubs are going to reinstate the draft, and
if you don't believe that, just look at the bill introduced BY THE
DEMOCRATS. The dems are full of ***** as usual.
[Dubya's incompetence has already created a hidden draft of activated
reservists and stop-loss non-volunteers. Barring some change (like the
removal of Dubya) a regular draft will be required to avoid a Vietnam-style
defeat in Iraq, and introducing the unsupportable bill *BEFORE* the election
was actually surprisingly effective in getting the issue on the table.]
--
We don't know if 9/11 could have been stopped--but we do know Dubya
failed to stop it. That's the FACT.
You want steady leadership for disastrous change?
Attack, lie, spin. Dubya's REAL trifecta.
Trolls fed to "The vile spewers of mindless blather thread".
('Doorman' is a role-based pen name of Shannon Jacobs, copyright
2004.)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
