So Pissed @ Bush

[10secimportpyro]

So I was pissed at Bush about everything before but then the whole hurricane Katrina comes along. I mean he sucks balls (Bush) at dealing with the situation and what not. Fine. I can deal with that more so but then today he nominates John Roberts to be Chief Justice. What the FUCK

Comments

[pirateoftheeast]

Just imagine, all those millions of moronic motherfuckers, who voted for Bush. They just screwed themselves, and must be feeling pretty proud of themselves right about now. This socially conservative swing is probably going to cause a really bad backlash, which will be interesting to witness (or take part in, depending).

[communistben]

What are you talking about? Most of the victims are poor blacks, they didn't vote for Bush.

[communistben]

I love how liberals take potshots at Bush for Katrina. There is a reason why there is a national guard for each state, a coast guard and FEMA, these are groups and organizations that have been given powers delegated by the government to respond to these natural disasters. If you want to blame someone, blame it on FEMA coordinators and the government red tape that was restricting the naval reserves for 36 hours(and you know who likes government regulations, right?). How did "millions of moronic motherfuckers, who votes for Bush" screw themselves? Last time I checked most of New Orleans are run by blacks and democrats, lol I guess its the stupid motherfucker liberal democrats and black people's fault for the levees breaking and a third of the police force fleeing. I really dont see any backlash from conservatives against Bush, only against the Federal government(specifically FEMA), the only major story that is under afoul is New Orleans(run by Democrats and black people). Even still, the rest of Lousiana, Mississippi, and Alabama are

[10secimportpyro]

You don't think if a liberal were a President and this happened, then the conservatives wouldn't do the same thing to plame the Pres? Both conservatives and liberals will blame each other. True, FEMA probably did a crappy job, but Bush himself could have done more- at least symbolically. He "toured" the area in his airplane. He was slow to mandate more troops into the area. Being a wealthy president, I for one would have liked to see him donate some of his own money (even $1000) towards the cause.

Now, I don't really understand Andy's point applied in this case, but I don't think I understand your points about New Orleans and what not. It looks like that you are pretty racist to me, but maybe I already knew that.

[abekaul]

Jason,

First of all take a deep breath, I also have my issues with Roberts but he is the best we could have hoped for. He is a scholarly and pragmatic justice like Rehnquist not a crazy conservative than Scalia. Now as long as a moderate is appointed to O'Connor's spot it will be the same. Roe vs. Wade won't be overturned, because Republicans realize that it could cost them their base who could become disinterested in politics if this happens. Its kinda the Democrats fault because we should have won the election, now that we lost we have no say.

[_sachiel]

Its the democrats fault because they should have won th election? Thats kind of a strange answer/statement...

[communistben]

no no its the republican's fault for winning

[10secimportpyro]

Take a deep breath? No offense Abe, but why is Roberts the best to hope for? I think I would have been a better candidate. Yeah, Bush should have nominated me. Technically, I could get congressional approval to be the CJ. And I don't care if Roberts is scholarly and what not. Many people are probably just as smart and what not. Do you think Bush will actually replace O'Connor's spot with a moderate? Maybe, but maybe not. Besides, O' Connor seemed to be a bit more liberal on the issues- or at least some of the big ones. And Roe v. Wade won't be overturned because their base would be disinterested in politics? Please. Bush has made his own personal beliefs about hot issues (e.g. gay rights, stem cell research) clear and if he had it his way, I'm sure he revisit some issues like abortion. Your argument seems pretty far-fetched. And it's the Dem's fault because they didn't win the election? OMG. You can't say that. How is that relative? How would Dem's know that Rehnquist would die and O'Connor quit and Katrina happen and such. It's

[communistben]

Lol, whats so bad about John Roberts? And the court isn't conservative, its a flaming liberal party, Rehnquist is the man who put a leash on the rabid advocate judges, jesus, how can we have courts deciding on letting black people in public schools, that totally goes against Plessy v. Ferguson, the law is the law right? You can't change the law of the land, thats outrageous, judges are supposed to interpret laws, not make them. I demand state rights. The South shall rise again. Its going to have to take the deaths of Ginsberg, Beyer and Souter for it to be a Conservative bastion.

[10secimportpyro]

The court is conservative. You're right about Rehnquist shaping the court so that it wasn't as liberal as before. But during Rehnquist's tenure, the court was more conservative than it was before. Robert's is probably a great guy, but for Bush to appoint him as CJ is pretty crappy. I acknowledge that historically, most CJ's were previously not associate justices, but so what. My problem with ROberts is that he seems too conservative. I mean he wants(ed) to overturn Roe v. Wade. That's pretty conservative to me

[_sachiel]

his above comment was more joking around, he doesnt really want the south to rise necessarily. How would you not be alive anymore if Brown V. Ed was overturned?

[communistben]

Well too bad the liberals loss the elections in the Presidency and both Houses, now its time for the winners to run this nation to the right, no matter how much you complain, you will not prevail. The moral majority has mobilized and is ready to take the nation to a new era where morality means something and will push back the excesses of liberalism. You complain and complain, so what

[communistben]

And whats with defending Roe v Wade? You like killing babies like Red China?

[10secimportpyro]

Who says we are killing babies? At the time of an abortion, is the "baby" an actual 'baby?' THat's besides the point anyway...I believe it's a woman's right to choose. Unless you want to play the "she made the mistake in the first place by getting knocked up" game...then that's a different story. In any case, we are not in china...maybe you haven't noticed my 'communist' friend LOL

[communistben]

We are killing babies. When I punch a pregnant woman in the stomach and kill the "thing" as you would like to put it, I would be charged for homicide, if I kill a pregnant lady, I would be charged for double homicide. Whats the difference with a doctor doing it or using a clothe hanger? That is the point with Roe V Wade, thats why its such a hot topic, its about many things, what makes a fetus/baby a living breathing human being, why is it legal to kill babies in the wombs of mothers? Liberals tend to favor baby killing while opposing the death penalty(Dukakis being the clear example of classic modern American liberalism). "she made the mistake in the first place by getting knocked up" game is part of the issue with this decision, how is that a different story? Many people oppose Roe V Wade because of that, it punishes the wrong person, it instead destroys an innocent life. Even "Jane Roe" has opposed abortion, the very person who put the issue to the supreme court!!! Jane Roe was a pawn of ultra-leftist abortion advocates, thats how

[10secimportpyro]

Well, if we are killing babies, then why are abortions still legal? I think it is less about killing babies and more having to do with a "woman's right to choose." You make good points about double standards about abortion and killing a pregnant woman and such. I guess the courts believe that a woman can choose to terminate her own fetus/living self. But then that's another issue about right to die (I know, I know, you are thinking about Terry Schaivo!!). I am for the death penalty, nothing against killing a crazed murderer in the purest sense. I am not arguing against it. You're right about many people opposing Roe v. Wade...many people also support it. If a woman get's an abortion during a certain amount of time, is their "life" in her womb? Besides, do fetus' have rights? Women do, but do their unborn (especially debatable unborn)? Jane Roe was for abortion for a long time. True, she is now opposed to abortions, but she was for them awhile ago. I don't see what's so bad about the "ultra-leftist" abortion advocates from the 1970's.

[communistben]

Where is the logic in blaming Bush for the Katrina disaster?

I wasn't referring to the hurricanes

[pirateoftheeast]

When I said people screwed themselves. I was referring to people eventually having their rights infringed upon, despite voting for the party which was "less government". My ass. I don't know enough about the Katrina disaster and the govt. response to really say anything about it, but I can say that having the government dictate people's life choices (gay marriage, abortion, etc.) is borderlining bullshit. That's the reason why I'm siding with the "liberal" side of these social issues. The state should be helping (ex. disaster relief), rather than imposing

Re: I wasn't referring to the hurricanes

[communistben]

Those people who voted for Bush are strong conservatives that believe in traditional values. If you are so keen on liberal values, why don't you advocate pologamy or pedophile, we must not impede on life choices such as those, right? Moral relativism is fun ain't it?

Every time you masterbate you kill dozens of future children, and a kitten dies. And we should stop women from having periods, somehow.

Classical Liberalism does not mean moral relativism, it is the decadent "liberals" who have no values but toward anarchy.

Conservatives do not want to go back to the days of slave labor, they want to re-enforce time tested moral values as well as further free trade(economic classical liberalism).

Re: I wasn't referring to the hurricanes

[10secimportpyro]

Conservatives don't want to go back to slave labor, yes. But liberals are not advocating anarchy, and most of them do not advocate pologamy. Sure, there are the extremes on both sides that argue that, but mainstream liberalism (and conservatism) is not like that.

What are traditional values? Who dictates those? Andy may be liberal at heart, but he is not (and me neither) an anarchist (or so I hope ;-). Most liberals want change (or to go forward) but in moderation. Somethings you mention seem completely irrelevant. Why should we stop women from having periods? Oh, and wasn't pologamy ok back in the day?