Skip to comments.
Kennedy Says Alito 'Itching to Overturn Roe v. Wade'
CNS News ^
| January 20, 2006
| Nathan Burchfiel
Posted on 01/20/2006 5:48:42 PM PST by Kaslin
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160, 161-171 last
To: GSHastings
I really wish you would have read the other posts in this thread. I have made a change in that silly opinion. Yes it was an ambivilant opinion that contradicted my belief that abortion on demand is wrong.
161
posted on
01/21/2006 10:31:37 AM PST
by
phoenix0468
(http://www.mylocalforum.com -- Go Speak Your Mind.)
To: Reagan Man
I wasn't sure about you. Now I am. You're a libertarian. That explains everything. Take care twinkie. LOL
Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent is the strategy for people who have a case that is weak.
Of course you are an expert on ad hominem attacks.
162
posted on
01/21/2006 10:38:11 AM PST
by
phoenix0468
(http://www.mylocalforum.com -- Go Speak Your Mind.)
To: barj
Teddy so worried about 'itchy' Alito reversing the baby-killers golden rule of Roe v Wade. Then again, he is not accustomed to trying to protect or save a life. One could say that Mary Jo's life got aborted via Teddy boy.
163
posted on
01/21/2006 10:43:16 AM PST
by
tflabo
(Take authority that's ours)
To: newzjunkey
Thanks very much for the info.
Another Kennedy hypocrisy.
164
posted on
01/21/2006 10:45:14 AM PST
by
Churchillspirit
(Anaheim Angels - 2002 World Series Champions)
To: phoenix0468
So I guess you didn't mean it when you closed with,
"bye bye idiot". Just like you didn't mean it when you said, you were for abortion before you were against it. LOL
Face it, you've dug yourself a very deep hole. Along with zero integrity, you've lost all credibility and can't be taken seriously. Until you grow some thicker skin, debating with you is a waste of time. You debate like a 12 year old whose been listening to much Al Franken and Howard Stern, the masters of ad hominem.
165
posted on
01/21/2006 11:41:45 AM PST
by
Reagan Man
(Secure our borders;punish employers who hire illegals;stop all welfare to illegals)
To: rlmorel
His misjudgement was totally off. He would have been held in higher regard if he at least tried to save her, I just don't think it would have been that difficult. The water just wasn't that deep. At any rate, that is all water under the bridge pardon the pun. At least, it cost him presidency and the nation.
166
posted on
01/21/2006 5:42:31 PM PST
by
mel
To: Kaslin
And Kennedy is itching to keep the baby killing business working at full speed!
167
posted on
01/21/2006 5:46:28 PM PST
by
airborne
(If being a Christian was a crime, would there be enough evidence to convict you?)
To: mel
I agree. The problem I have, besides being from Massachusetts (Don't get me wrong...I love it here, there is a lot to do and I don't want to move...:) is that when one reads the book "Senatorial Privilege", you realize the depth (no pun intended) that Ted Kennedy went to to try to save his skin with no regard, none, not even a smidgen of consideration for that young lady. He should have spent time in jail. And then, all these years, to hear him lecture others on morality, and what is right, is just galling.
I hate to make this statement, but those of you who live in the rest of the country have it, in a certain way, better than us (conservatives) who live in Massachusetts when it comes to Swimmer Ted. The only time you hear from Fat Ted everywhere else is when he opens his mouth and says his usual idiotic statements. We have to hear from him and about him all the time up here. Oh well. He can't last forever.
168
posted on
01/21/2006 6:41:48 PM PST
by
rlmorel
("Innocence seldom utters outraged shrieks. Guilt does." Whittaker Chambers)
To: phoenix0468
Every law against murder is the codification in law of a moral stance.
To: Giant Conservative
GC, you are correct, and I agree with that statement completely. But not only is it morally based, it is very solidly based on protecting an individuals Constitutional right to life. The type of laws I disagree with are those that legislate moral actions or decisions by an individual that do not infringe upon others rights. I.E. I think this is why the 18th Amendment was overturned. Alcohol consumption, in and of itself, hurts no one except the individual if they over consume. Now, the consequence of a person who over consumes alcohol and does something that harms or endangers others is covered by existing laws such as murder, manslaughter, and assault. I think that anyone who drinks and drives should be charged with much stiffer crimes such as those mentioned; i.e. the level of negligence of a drunk driver needs to be addressed in the type of charge attributed to them.
If we enacted stiffer penalties for such crimes, the number of incidents could be reduced drastically. In too many cases in this country we have created some over complicated compulsory judgment system that impedes the judges ability to properly penalize a defendant.
170
posted on
01/22/2006 1:27:48 PM PST
by
phoenix0468
(http://www.mylocalforum.com -- Go Speak Your Mind.)
To: ckilmer
Di Fi is looking through her left eye only (literally)...
171
posted on
01/23/2006 1:45:05 PM PST
by
dbostan
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160, 161-171 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson