Posted on 07/06/2005 8:00:51 AM PDT by rhema
You are badly misreading my statement. I just said that Bork is as wrong on his end as the liberals are on theirs. Telling me how wrong the liberals are on their end obviously does not then refute my statement. They are both authoritarian, but with a capital A. They merely quibble over what ends their authoritarian ends should reach.
That creepy Ralph Neas in back on TV. YUK!
I recall seeing Bork interviewed about Ginsberg and he said he thought she would make a wonderful SP justice or words to that effect. I nearly gagged when I heard him say it.
I guess Ginsburg pulled the ultimate deception. Her "rulings" were "moderate" and when appointed she unleased her radical liberal views on America.
lol
If the GOP fails on this crucial test, they will prove they no longer deserve to govern, and won't, for long.
Clue.. the republicans are not governing NOW, the democrats are.. If they were, the democrats would guard their words.. They don't.. Its the republicans that guard THEIR words.. for fear of not appearing bi-partisan..
Which is an invention of democrats who are NEVER bi-partisan unless they would lose anyway.. The demos rule the roost.. Republicans = chickens, Democrats = roosters.. and the metaphor don't stop there either.. Bush is a lesbian chicken not a fighting cock.. I wanna see a cock fight.. not a bunch of lesbian chickens clucking in a bass octave.. trying to appear like a COCK.. but laying socialist eggs..
You fail to distinguish between right and wrong. Refusal to distinguish between right and wrong is called licentiousness. Licentiousness is the fundamental Left characteristic, sometimes called nihilism or moral relativism.
Perhaps you can relate to the Red Queen, whom I paraphrase, "The words 'Right and Wrong' mean what I say they mean, nothing more, and nothing less."
You are a Leftist, lad.
Although Mr. Bork makes some good points, I disagree with him on a fairly fundamental level.
The court, and the country, IMO, are not becoming more "liberationist," but more controlling. In other words, if sodomy is to be allowed, it is not because it is a natural right, with which we are endowed by our Creator, but because our government, in its munifiscence, has decreed that it be so.
What I am trying to say is that our moral chaos is a specific result of the ever increasing responsibility for our lives taken by the state and the thus inevitible ever decreasing responsibility for our lives taken by ourselves. It's what must happen in a socialist top down country. Or fascist country, for that matter, if that's where we are headed.
Moral Absolutes/Homosexual Agenda Ping.
Bork is a genius. I love that man. It is disgusting, crying shame and tragedy he wasn't made a justice. I hope to God that Bush - and every single Republic [and any Democrats who aren't moral anarchist traitors] involved with the process - reads this article and takes it to heart.
Says it all.
Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.
*sigh*
I fear you have nailed it. It just goes to show you what having the MSM in your pocket, unlimited chutzpah, no soul, no conscience and an aggressive game plan can do for you - even if you continuously lose elections!
So he's not perfect. A big not perfect. But he's right about everything else I've ever read.
What? He supported her???
Gack.
I am a libertarian; I haven't made any misrepresentations in that regard. Moreover, I regard freedom as an absolute end unto itself. Better to die free than to live a slave.
At long last... justification for my own private Manhattan Project.
Uh oh... I think I hear G-men rummaging through the Garage
Generally Libertarianism is outgrown. Not always, of course.
I think yarddog is confused (sorry yarddog!). She was a member of the ACLU. He wouldn't have said that...
After posting my comment, I figured before I got all bent out of shape, I just check the facts. Who knows, he might have made a polite general comment.
Her view and his are diametrically opposite on almost everything.
Well I am easily confused but this was not one of those times. He did mention that his judicial philosophy was different from hers, but that is like saying, "I don't agree with those who want to destroy America but I support them".
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.