Kennedy Says Alito 'Itching to Overturn Roe v. Wade'

CNS News ^ | January 20, 2006 | Nathan Burchfiel

[phoenix0468]

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.

[phoenix0468]

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.

[tflabo]

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.

[Churchillspirit]

Thanks very much for the info.

Another Kennedy hypocrisy.

[Reagan Man]

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.

[mel]

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.

[airborne]

And Kennedy is itching to keep the baby killing business working at full speed!

[rlmorel]

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.

[Giant Conservative]

Every law against murder is the codification in law of a moral stance.

[phoenix0468]

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.

[dbostan]

Di Fi is looking through her left eye only (literally)...