I think she means that they should be able to vote and that whole pursuit of happiness thing. The fact that she did not want the law to change says a lot. She also said that she didn't want their endorsement. The article seems to be trying to spin it in order to make her look bad for conservatives. I still do not have an informed opinion on her. The questionare actually makes me feel better about her.
On its front page Tuesday, The New York Times published a photo of new U.S. Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers going over a briefing paper with President George W. Bush at his Crawford ranch “in August 2001,” the caption reads. USA Today and the Boston Globe carried the photo labeled simply “2001,” but many other newspapers ran the picture in print or on the Web with a more precise date: Aug. 6, 2001. Does that date sound familiar? Indeed, that was the date, a little over a month before 9/11, that President Bush was briefed on the now-famous “PDB” that declared that Osama Bin Laden was “determined” to attack the U.S. homeland, perhaps with hijacked planes. But does that mean that Miers had anything to do with that briefing? As it turns out, yes, according to Tuesday's Los Angeles Times. An article by Richard A. Serrano and Scott Gold observes that early in the Bush presidency “Miers assumed such an insider role that in 2001 it was she who handed Bush the crucial 'presidential daily briefing' hinting at terrorist plots against America just a month before the Sept. 11 attacks.” The PDB was headed “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.,” and notes, among other things, FBI information indicating “patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks.” So she handed him the Bin Laden airplanes to hit tall buildings memo. That means exactly less than nothing, but it is hilarious. Talk about wrong place, wrong time.
Do you think those two ideas go together though? That they should have the same liberties as anyone else, but what somebody does in the privacy of their own home is illegal? To me, that sounds either disingenuous or poorly analyzed...not sure which. I too am reserving judgment for now, but this is a big, big red flag for me.
If it had said, the same civil rights as "married" men and women instead of just non gay men and women, then I would have a serious problem with it. I think they worded that way to cause confusion.
Umm, yes, the Los Angeles Times. What better way to usher in a new supreme court justice than to have her be the one that physically handed moron the most important thing he never read. See last answer, i'll be here all week.
well, i see both parties as far too controlling today. they both want to control our lives way too much. they are two flavors of one extreme in my book. both parties wildly oppose the level of freedom we should have. this again goes back to our disagreement on the political spectrum. i see freedom from government intervention on one side, and government manipulation of the people on the opposite side. so fascism and communism are effectively the same because in both situations your freedom is taken from you. the only difference is that communists pretend that it is the collective and not centralized leadership taking your freedom, and that "the people" have the power (they dont). since you are unwilling to accept this accurate spectrum i so wonderfully presented, you are unlikely to agree with my point. both parties are just another flavor of control of individual freedom. i oppose both of them. you figure since we have two parties then they must be fixing themselves on the edges of a center that is right. and that makes no sense to me.
You are talking about two independent phenomenon. The political spectrum is widely acknowledged to have conservative and liberal wings with moderates in the middle. The extreme right fascists and extreme left communists may both be organizationally totalitarian, but are political opposites. The freedom spectrum you describe is another matter entirely with all totalitarians on one extreme and no-government anarchists on the other. Again, the pragmatic middle is where I stand. I advocate proper balance between government and the individual. Apples and oranges.
i cant see how dont realize this is just as partisan as ayone else. you have an opinion on what proper balance is, that is your stance. maybe i see proper balance as a position in between the stances of red and rex or red and sabanfan. both os those positions are moderate too, but they are only moderate in terms of the extremes. and if you would realize that makes the middle totally arbitrary rather than rational, we would agree a lot more often. there is no "balance". there is only one opinion and another. your version of balance is no more balanced than anyone elses. everone's opionion is the balance of some extremes somewhere.
Preposterous. :dis: You have exhausted your logic and are just blathering to get the last post in. Whatever blows your frock up.
