John Ashcroft Resigns as Attorney General

Everyone eagerly eats up the excuses from their favorite politicians while the bloodshed continues.

 

Spoken like a true blue liberal. Oh, puleeese!


</font>[/QUOTE]Spoken like a true ultra right wing who doesn't really care about our constitutional liberties only politics.

 

I imagine there must be a whole list of officially scary terrorists that have been brought to trial and convicted since the "act(s)" gave our "stumbling, rumblin, fumblin, triple fundin" intelligence agenies these much needed expanded police powers.

Isn't there?

 

Actually, there's been a series of rather embarassing losses for Ashcroft when the Justice Department took on the US Constitution.

So it's probably for the best that he's leaving. On the other hand, the guy replacing him is pro-abortion, which isn't very encouraging, given that the word is this appointment is meant as a stepping stone to a seat on the Supreme Court.

 

With statements like these (follow this link), I am not sure that I would consider him to be the right person for the job.

 

Ashcroft is finished. Let him depart in peace.

 

I was being sarcastic ... Once again pointing out how utterly futile your attempt was. Of course, you were told that ahead of time but somehow couldn't see through the mist of your personal issues.

Done about what? About abortion? I have long made my position clear on that. The battle against abortion must start with judicial appointments that will respect the law and the constitution. Since you and PJ didn't get his way, there is actually a chance that something can be done about it now.

We will see if Bush follows through. He has already on many appointments which the Dems have refused to let come to a vote over these issues. Hopefully, he will follow through.

 

(Barbarian asks Larry what he thinks is going to be done about abortion)

But you voted for a candidate who has pledged not to do that. In fact, he says he will not make abortion a criterion when selecting candidates.

I voted for someone who said he would do that. Because for me, being a libertarian came second to doing the right thing. For you, being a republican came first.

You mean because we didn't get our way, there is no chance that anything will be done about it now.

Bush has already pledged that it won't. But remember, he says that he favors abortion in some circumstances.

We, as a nation, get what we vote for. And it's people like you who assured that abortion will continue.

Gee thanks, Larry.

He already has. His first nomination after winning was pro-abortion. How about that?

 

The Fundamentalists mostly do not give Ashcroft credit because they do not want to admit to the perpetuity of spiritual gifts. I always pray that Fundamentalists will all start speaking in tongues.

Ashcroft is charismatic. He defended the country well and made no major mistake. Even Democrats like Kerry thought that the Patriot Act should be stronger.

Ashcroft was a Presidential candidate in 2000 and my first choice to be President. He would be a good Chief Justice or a good President.

Thanks and a tip of the hat to a great American, John Ashcroft! May your tribe increase!

 

You have, once again, told a lie. Bush has promised to appoint strict constructionists, which everyone (but you apparenlty) knows typically means pro life. That is why the DEms and the pro abortion groups are so scared of him. Bush has appointed pro life judges and has plainly said he wants a culture where every child is protected by law and welcomed into life.

Another lie ... Being a republican didn't come first. I am not a republican. I voted for the best interest for America. You voted for someone who was all talk and no action. If you think that was effective, then ... well, I don't know what to say. That kind of thinking has no place here.

 

Barbarian observes:
But you voted for a candidate who has pledged not to do that. In fact, he says he will not make abortion a criterion when selecting candidates.

No, but you have, Larry:

(AP) — Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush said Monday he would not require his Supreme Court nominees to pass an anti-abortion “litmus test.”
http://www.texnews.com/abilene2000/elec/bush0615.html

Never lie about something so easy to verify.

Unless they are conceived by rape or incest. Then...

Bush opposes abortion except in cases of rape, incest or to save the mother’s life.
“I’ve set the goal that every child born and unborn ought to be protected. But I recognize [that many] people don’t necessarily agree with the goal. People appreciate somebody who sets a tone, a tone that values life, but recognizes that people disagree.“
George Skelton, Los Angeles Times Jun 5, 2000

Barbarian on voting for a pro-life candidate:
I voted for someone who said he would do that. Because for me, being a libertarian came second to doing the right thing. For you, being a republican came first.

You had a choice between voting for your stated principles, or for a republican. You voted republican.

Barbarian observes:
Bush has already pledged that it won't. But remember, he says that he favors abortion in some circumstances.

See above.

Oh, he just "allows" it. Sort of like Kerry disagrees with abortion, but "allows" it. Very Larry.

Barbarian on the consequences of voting for a pro-abortion candidate like Bush:
And it's people like you who assured that abortion will continue.

Limited. That's your target? That's also Kerry's target. But if every person who opposed abortion voted for Peroutka, it would be on it's way out.

My way would have elected Peroutka.

Some chance. Bush's first nomination since the election is a pro-abortion judge for Attorney General.

Gee thanks, Larry.

Neither Bush nor Kerry said they would pick nominees by abortion views. In fact, they said they would not. How exactly, do they differ?

We've had "antiabortion" republicans for most of the past two decades. And their nominees support abortion.

The AG has a responsibility to enforce the law. And he determines what the priorities are. Gonzales, in a Texas Supreme Court decision, said parents had no right to be notified if their minor children were to have an abortion.

That's the level Bush is working on. Worse, the word is that the AG post is a stepping stone to the Supreme Court.

You lied again. You got caught again. This is getting repetitious, Larry.

 

YOu are not thinking Galatian. No surprise there, but necesssary to point it out. He has said over and over again that he will appoint strict constructionists who are commonly known as pro life judges. That is so simple to verify; not even you should miss that.

 

Barbarian observes:
But you voted for a candidate who has pledged not to do that. In fact, he says he will not make abortion a criterion when selecting candidates.

Larry denies the truth:
You have, once again, told a lie.

Barbarian observes:
No, but you have, Larry:

(AP) — Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush said Monday he would not require his Supreme Court nominees to pass an anti-abortion “litmus test.”
http://www.texnews.com/abilene2000/elec/bush0615.html

Never lie about something so easy to verify. I know you're trying to make an excuse for yourself now, but Bush did exactly what I said he did, and you lied about it.

Be a man, and try to do better next time.

 

So where is the lie? You have been caught redhanded. I never denied that Bush said that about abortion being a litmus test. I actually told the whole truth, something you have a huge problem with. Your habit of distortion and misrepresentation keeps getting you caught, and it did again here. (I repeat that you should find another hobby. You are not good at this one.) What I pointed out was that he said "strict constructionism" is the key.

Do us all a favor Galatian. Do some research on strict constructionism and find out what it means. This is something that is so easily verifiable that you will even laugh at yourself when you find out. Bush did say what you said he said. I never denied that. Strict construction judges will most likely overturn Roe v. Wade. You appear to be one of the few who don't know this.

You have been caught in both ignorance and lying. They are both pretty easily remedied with a small amount of personal embarrassment for you to admit it. But you don't have to continue in that realm. You can be different. Please be different for all of our sakes ...

 

You're right. The country is only going to get worse uner Bush.

 

If it does, it won't be as bad as it would have gotten under John Kerry as president.

 

You cannot say that, as we will never know if this is true. I neither believe in, or give credence to "would'a, should'a, could'a" scenarios. [sic]

Well, let's see if he delivers on this, as "he has said [it] over and over again."

 

Gonzales is certainly a step in the right direction.