John Ashcroft Resigns as Attorney General

I will miss John Ashcroft. History and God will be his judge.

 

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.

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.”

Never lie about something so easy to verify.

I think everyone here can judge what Bush said, and what it means. And they know you were lying.

Barbarian observes on ending abortion:
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.

And that's a shame.

 

It is interesting to watch the meltdown among the non-Republicans. Apparently, most of them have already started the 2008 campaign even though they lost the last election by 3 1/2 million votes.

Ashcroft is a better lawyer than most. He was Governor, U.S. Senator, and Attorney General. He is a born-again Christian and a charismatic Evangelical. He should get the credit that he deserves for being a great American!

 

Galatian,

Wake up man ... Repeateing the same misrepresentations about what was said will not make them true. You lied, you got caught ... And this happens time after time. YOu are not good at this. You apparently do not read the news much, or forget very quickly.

You apparently did not do any research on strict constructionism. You should. It would show how uninformed you are and how misguided you are.

You need to take a break from this board until such time as you learn the virtues of honesty and integrity in communication. It is shameful that you have not yet learned ... And given as many times as you have been caught, we are left wondering what in the world is going on in your head. It shouldnt' take this many times for you to learn you don't get away with it here. Most people learn quicker than that, and stop embarrassing themselves.

Listen to what Bush has said:
He was a culture of life where every child is protected by law and welcomed into life.
He will appoint strict constructionists, which is a common phrase for pro life justices. (A simple google search will show that to be true).
Bush has already appointed pro life nominees.

That is the truth whether you like it or not. Obviously, you don't like it because it shows how wrong you are. I don't know if Bush will carry through on it. I hope he will. But you are wrong to lie about what was said.

 

I told you that Bush pledged not to make abortion views a criterion for nominating judges. And then I cited:

"(AP) — Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush said Monday he would not require his Supreme Court nominees to pass an anti-abortion “litmus test.”
You apparently did not do any research on strict constructionism. You should. It would show how uninformed you are and how misguided you are. [/quote]I know what Bush said. Just what I said he said. You lied.

Yes, he said that. And yet, if the child is conceived by incest or rape, he's in favor of letting them kill it.

I see a contradiction there. Do you?

But he also favors abortion in some cases, and has said he won't make abortion views a criterion in his nominations. Which is what I said, and what you falsely denied he said.

His latest nominee, while a judge on the Texas Supreme court, was pro-abortion.

How about that?

 

He has also appointed pro-abortion judges as President during his first term, and he considers Gonzales to be a "strict constructionist", so I guess for Bush that doesn't always mean pro-life as some have been fooled into believing.

 

Galatian,

YOu lied and got caught. Coming back in here to force the issue just makes you look worse. And then you lie again. You said that Bush favors abortion in some cases. That is an out and out lie. You know it. You should be embarrassed. Bush does not favor abortion in some cases. He allows it in some cases. The more you come in here, the more you compound your problems, and the more ridiculous you look.

What I denied Bush said had specifically to do with the meaning of strict constructionism. If you knew what you were talking about, you would see this very clearly. If you would do your homework, you could actually be right on something. Your continually being wrong is easily rectifiable. But you would rather continue in ignorance than do the work to be right.

It is shameful that you continue to come in here.

Both of you guys could do the homework and recognize the errors you have made. I wish you would.

 

Galatian,

It's amazing how you so easily categorize this man as being Pro-Abortion.

How many rulings did the Judge make that were Pro-Abortion while on the Texas Supreme Court? 1 or more? If more please give the evidence.

Sure he ruled with the majority about a 17 year old not falling under the Parental Notification Clause of the law. That syncs with Texas law that says a 17 year old can legally consent to having sex. Now if a 17 year old can legally consent to having sex in Texas it makes sense to limit the age of parental notification to under 17.

I don't think that makes him Pro-Abortion but I'm sure the far right does.

Interesting that you align yourself with the far right so closely.

 

Actually, he goes a bit beyond pro-abortion. He ruled that a minor can get an abortion, and her parents don't have a right to know.

"While acting as a judge at the Texas Supreme Court in 1999, the court was asked to rule on a case where an unmarried, minor girl could have an abortion without notifying her parents -- Gonzales voted with the majority to allow the abortion without parental notification."
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/nov/04111003.html

It's not a right/left issue. It's a pro-life/pro-abortion issue.

So only us rightwing wackos think parents have a right to know when their minor child goes for an abortion?

Amazing... just amazing.

 

I have done my homework, and don't see where there are any errors in my post. Bush has nominated pro-abortion judges both in Texas and in Washington D.C.

Gonzoles who Bush claims is a "strict constructionist" says that the Constitution is a "living document".

 

Yep. Same old doubletalk, to please both sides at once.

 

The President can choose whomever he likes to sit in his cabinet of personal advisors. JFK chose his brother Bobby. Unless the fellow chosen has a history of mental illness or a record of criminal activity, the opposition parties should allow his nomination to pass in the Senate.

Afterall, Bush did garner more than 59 million votes and has a majority.

Few other attorneys general will measure up to the great John Ashcroft! As you know, he was Governor of Missouri and US Senator from Missouri before he served 4 years as Attorney General. He is a born-again Christian and was a presidential candidate in 2000 (and also 1996?). He is one of the finest Americans in public life today. He should be President.

 

Jonathan,

You err as to what strict constructionist means. Do your homework. It is easy to find. You guys have your minds made up and are unwilling to listen to the truth. Not every strict constructionist is consistent, but the left and the pro abortion crowd is scared to death of Bush because they know what he has said and where he stands. You guys, for some strange reason, won't see it. You would rather pick political fights with the best electable candidate. IMO, that shows a real lack of wisdom.

 

Would you consider Gonzales to be a "strict constructionist"? Bush does.

 

Jonathan, it's not about that. It's about Larry having much more intelligenc and wisdom than you. Get back on topic.

 

I don't know enough about Gonzales, nor do I know what Bush thinks about him.

And PJ, as happens too often, can seem to say anything about the topic. He instead resorts to absurd comments and personal attacks.

 

Bush probably thinks he's a bad guy, that's why he made him AG.

 

Gonzales has described the Constitution as a "living document."

"The man picked by President Bush to be the next attorney general believes the Constitution is a living document and that only the nine black-robed brethren have sufficient understanding of the document to explain to the people what it means."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41398

Bush is sending a message for all the pro-choice people who voted for him...

"Suckers"

 

There is a thread running here:

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/18/2483.html?

on the general topic of cabinet resignations. Lets move the discussion there so we can consolidate it.

Thanks,
Roger
C4K
Moderator