Sunday, January 16, 2005

Deuce of Spades...


UBL's cousin, Dubya-al bin Laden

5 comments:

Huf said...

Fundamentalism rocks!

commonsensical said...

Grodge - Golf as one of your interest? Last I heard was "I'm going to quit" but we've all been there.

In the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson, "At times the whole world seems to be in conspiracy to importune you with emphatic trifles."

I presume that I am the one identified as, "At least one person on this list voted for Bush solely for his "moral issues" stances, and actually had called Bush a "loose cannon" on foreign policy. Do we now have the worst of all worlds? Just wondering if you feel used?"

First let’s clarify, I did not vote for Bush solely for his moral issues, I repeated stated the main issue for me was Supreme Court nominees though moral issues played a significant role.

Overall No, I am more concerned about the lack of effort with the senate (no – not her) in regards to the gay marriage issue than Judge Gonzales. Though I agree with the stance of banning same sex marriage, I believe it is a state issue. The problem I have with Bush here is he made claims that in reality had no chance of becoming action. He made his personal opinion clear during the debates and various campaign speeches but he had to know that the senate would never pass or even seriously entertain the bill. I gues it is about expectations, I did not expect Bush to get that done.

I personally thought Gonzales was a decent choice given the limited amount of knowledge I have about his career. For a man who has made hundred of rulings, CNN in it’s effort to present the most slanted and controversial spin on a story quoted Judie Brown, president of the American Life League, though Judie has admirable intentions it has been widely published that she has no regard for current law. This was and further evidenced in her statement from the same article, "choosing not to rule against abortion, in any situation, is the epitome of denying justice for an entire segment of the American population -- pre-born babies in the womb." I completely agree with Ms. Brown in principle but fortunately, or unfortunately depending how you want to view it’ we cannot arbitrarily change a practice that is protected by our constitution. I think Judge Gonzales’ opinion on the ruling not only stated that his belief is concurrent with President Bush’s but also defined his integrity and the respect in which he holds for the constitution. Until the heart of the American people change, legislation is inconsequential to the abortion issue.

In his opinion on the ruling, Gonzales wrote, "While the ramifications of such a law may be personally troubling to me as a parent, it is my obligation as a judge to impartially apply the laws of this state without imposing my moral view on the decisions of the legislature."

Dr. G - It’s all about the power? No kidding, you can look at any institution from politics, business, the Catholic Church, or my condo board and figure that out. I am amused that you constantly use issues against Bush that apply to nearly everyone. He has enough issues unique to his presidency that you do not have to generalize.

commonsensical said...

In the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson, "At times the whole world seems to be in conspiracy to importune you with emphatic trifles."

I presume that I am the one identified as, "At least one person on this list voted for Bush solely for his "moral issues" stances, and actually had called Bush a "loose cannon" on foreign policy. Do we now have the worst of all worlds? Just wondering if you feel used?"

First let’s clarify, I did not vote for Bush solely for his moral issues, I repeated stated the main issue for me was Supreme Court nominees though moral issues played a significant role.

Overall No, I am more concerned about the lack of effort with the senate (no – not her) in regards to the gay marriage issue than Judge Gonzales. Though I agree with the stance of banning same sex marriage, I believe it is a state issue. The problem I have with Bush here is he made claims that in reality had no chance of becoming action. He made his personal opinion clear during the debates and various campaign speeches but he had to know that the senate would never pass or even seriously entertain the bill.

I personally thought Gonzales was a decent choice given the limited amount of knowledge I have about his career. For a man who has made hundred of rulings, CNN in it’s effort to present the most slanted and controversial spin on a story they quoted Judie Brown, president of the American Life League, though Judie has admirable intentions it has been widely published that she has no regard for current law. This was and further evidenced in her statement from the same article, "choosing not to rule against abortion, in any situation, is the epitome of denying justice for an entire segment of the American population -- pre-born babies in the womb." I completely agree with Ms. Brown in principle but fortunately, or unfortunately depending how you want to view it’ we cannot arbitrarily change a practice that is protected by our constitution. I think Judge Gonzales’ opinion on the ruling not only stated that his belief is concurrent with President Bush’s but also defined his integrity and the respect in which he holds for the constitution. Until the heart of the American people change, legislation is inconsequential to the abortion issue.

In his opinion on the ruling, Gonzales wrote, "While the ramifications of such a law may be personally troubling to me as a parent, it is my obligation as a judge to impartially apply the laws of this state without imposing my moral view on the decisions of the legislature."

Dr. G - It’s all about the power? No kidding, you can look at any institution from politics, business, the Catholic Church, or my condo board and figure that out. I am amused that you constantly use issues against Bush that apply to nearly everyone. He has enough issues unique to his presidency that you do not have to generalize.

Grodge said...

OK, Commonsen, I'll take that as a vote of support for AG for AG, and I applaud your respect for a woman's right to privacy. Thankfully, I guess we won't be hearing any more from you about overturning Roe v. Wade, and I expect we can count on your support for choice in the future. For the record, many anti-choice commentators have been quite vociferous in their disdain for Gonzales, and I would view CNN as just being complete in presenting both sides-- more than we could expect from Fox. For example,
Peroutka is not happy with AG: http://www.covenantnews.com/peroutka050114.htm

and USA Today (or is that a liberal rag, too?) also listed prominent conservative groups that were uncomfortable with AG: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-11-10-gonzales-inside-usat_x.htm

If gay marriage is a "state" issue, then what about the Senate's inaction do you disagree with? That's a disconnect to me.

Grodge said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.