What Blackmun doesn't seem to understand is that there was due process in the abortion cases. Those that supported abortion could petition the legislature to change the law.
(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.
(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.
(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life [410 U.S. 113, 165] may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.
Can anyone explain why the above isn't legislation?
While alcohol is no great thing to combine with motor vehicles, it is fairly short lived. The guy smoking weed will get high today and kill me on the road tomorrow.
How does marijuana affect driving?
Marijuana affects many skills required for safe driving: alertness, the ability to concentrate, coordination, and reaction time. These effects can last up to 24 hours after smoking marijuana. Marijuana use can make it difficult to judge distances and react to signals and sounds on the road.
There are data showing that marijuana can play a role in crashes. When users combine marijuana with alcohol, as they often do, the hazards of driving can be more severe than with either drug alone.
A study of patients in a shock-trauma unit who had been in traffic accidents revealed that 15 percent of those who had been driving a car or motorcycle had been smoking marijuana, and another 17 percent had both THC and alcohol in their blood.
In one study conducted in Memphis, TN, researchers found that, of 150 reckless drivers who were tested for drugs at the arrest scene, 33 percent tested positive for marijuana, and 12 percent tested positive for both marijuana and cocaine. Data also show that while smoking marijuana, people show the same lack of coordination on standard "drunk driver" tests as do people who have had too much to drink
and if it bases its decision on the language of the first amendment ("congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...", which thanks to the 14th amendment can just as easily read "neither congress nor any other legislative body shall make a law respecting an establishment of religion...", and i'm not gonna think about looking up any case law it may use), it'll uphold the circuit court decision. which i think we both agree would be a very very bad thing.
Which religion is being established by the words "under god" in the pledge of allegiance?
What I consider to be god, you may not. I consider the christian interpretation of God to be correct, but you may consider the muslim's interpretation or even money may be your god for that matter. The constitution has not been violated by the words "under god", because it has not established christianity or any other religion as a state religion.
What the framers of the constitution wanted to get away from was the example of England's establishment of the Catholic religion as being the only acceptable form of religion.
"Hey man! The WTC just got wasted, dude! Pass me some fritos, man. That Osama dude has a really cool beard man. Let's smoke a few more bowls and cash our welfare checks so we can get more pot."
Does this conversation sound like: A) Someone on blood pressure meds? B) Someone on allergy meds? C) Someone on pain meds? D) Someone driving with kids in the car? E) Someone on the cell phone? F) Or someone from the looney left smokin pot?
Let's just legalize everything! Coke, crack, uppers, downers, and in-betweeners. We can lead the way as the civilized stoner country where nobody cares about anything.
I bet there is a conservative or two who has smoked pot before. And they'd probably make less sense than those two.
I waffle on drug legalization. If it's done in a organized and controlled manner isn't it better than continuing to enrich organized crime? Why continue turning thugs and killers into millionaires who can scoff at society and the law? The expense, time and effort for enforcement of the laws is horrendous.
On the other hand, I just don't know if this is the kind of country that can carry it out. Other countries can function just fine without even having a drinking age. I tend to think we're not a mature enough people to handle that.
you have to be old enough to be tall enough to be seen at the bar. then again, if you look at those countries, consuming alcohol responsibly has been a part of daily life for centuries. makes one wonder what happened when they arrived here that took away the responsibly part.
I bet there is a conservative or two who has smoked pot before. And they'd probably make less sense than those two.
Hey I resent that ;)
Yes I've smoked pot and inhaled. Although I think I made more sense than those two, I'm sure some would take issue with that :) I haven't done it for years and one thing i noticed is that friends I knew in school who did it alot and are still doing it are well.......not much different or better off than they were in high school. Could be a coincidence but the ones who still do aren't doing well socially, maybe they are happy, I hope so, to each their own.
I am conflicted on it too. Drug use is and has been declining. Yes there are costs with the war on drugs but there are social costs to legalizing it too. If it's legalized the country is essentially saying go ahead and do it. Pot can be a gateway drug to harder drugs. I look at it this way, we have done a 180 in many ways socially from the late 50's or early 60's. Some good and some bad. But look at what some of the loosening up has brought us. Not saying those times were perfect either but in many ways it's day and night socially, I would say not to the better in some cases. Do we really need to add another problem to the mix ?
"I look at it this way, we have done a 180 in many ways socially from the late 50's or early 60's. Some good and some bad. But look at what some of the loosening up has brought us."
To use a '60s term, I think we are people with fewer "hang ups" now as well. We confront race issues in more mature way. Ask a woman if she'd want to go back to her role the 50s.
"Do we really need to add another problem to the mix ? "
Drug legalization is supposed to be a solution. But, like I said, I don't know if the US is the kind of country that can handle it.
The Court's opinion brings to the decision of this troubling question both extensive historical fact and a wealth of legal scholarship. While the opinion thus commands my respect, I find myself nonetheless in fundamental disagreement, etc., etc., etc....
fold wrote: You didn't post a LINK to this particular post, Jethro???
To use a '60s term, I think we are people with fewer "hang ups" now as well. We confront race issues in more mature way. Ask a woman if she'd want to go back to her role the 50s.
That's why I said some good and some bad, we've come along way in those regards and it's a good thing. I was referring to our attitudes towards sex, drugs, etc. Remember "if it feels good do it?" Some might say it's a good thing. Something has changed and it can't be pointed to one thing, but in 1965 I don't remember hearing of mass school shootings, kids being kidnapped and raped almost daily, kids killing kids. violence at new levels. Those things happened but not to that extent they do today, why ? What has changed ? Is it our attiudes or the social envioment we are exposed to. All I'm saying is adding another thing into the mix is probably not a good idea. I see other peoples points and admit I'm conflicted but it hasn't been a great success in places where it is legalized.
It hasn't been a complete failure. How many people do not do drugs that would if they were legal? What impact to society would occur if drugs were made legal and more people did them. We already have enough trouble with alcohol.
I don't think it's a complete failure, drug use has been dropping for years.
How many less would do them if they were legal?
I think alot more would if we removed the penalties around it and took the taboo away from it, much more so than the people that try it because it's taboo.
I'm curious do you think we should legalize all drugs, Coke, crack, heroin, lsd, acid, etc. or just pot ?
How many do them because they are illegal, and therefore taboo?
how many times jt have your kids done something you told them not to just because you told them not to. legalise 'em and take the glamour of using them away.
how many times jt havfe your kids done something you told them not to just because you told them not to. legalise 'em and take the glamour of using them away.
O.K but how many times have kids also NOT done something because the parent told them no ? Legalizing it takes the stigma away.
i'm sure that happens more times than the scenario i proposed happens, rob. but in the 4 years i spent as a glorified babysitterlifeguard, more often than not, kids would do something because i told them they couldn't do it. and the kids i was guarding over were the sort who were a lot more, shall we say, at risk of becoming drug users, just because of the sort of home-life they had.
I see what you're saying Ares, but there are a million things we have a taboo on that people don't do because their parents told them not to do so or their moral fiber tells them it's wrong.
Here's some info I found on the net that seems to be pretty well put together. It has a bunch of stuff on there but here's a few excerpts.
Myth #5:
Other Nations Have Successfully Legalized Drug
History provides evidence that legalization of drugs in foreign nations has not been successful. For example, opium was legalized in China earlier this century. That decision resulted in 90 million addicts and it took a half-century to repair the damage.[59]
Egypt allowed unrestricted trade of cocaine and heroin in the 1920s. An epidemic of addiction resulted. Even in Iran and Thailand, countries where drugs are readily available, the prevalence of addiction continues to soar.[60]
Modern-day Netherlands is often cited as a country which has successfully legalized drugs. Marijuana is sold over the counter and police seldom arrest cocaine and heroin users. But official tolerance has led to significant increases in addiction. Amsterdam's officials blame the significant rise in crime on the liberal drug policy. The city's 7,000 addicts are blamed for 80 percent of all property crime and Amsterdam's rate of burglary is now twice that of Newark, New Jersey.[61] Drug problems have forced the city to increase the size of the police force and the city fathers are now rethinking the drug policy.[62]
Dr. K. F. Gunning, president of the Dutch National Committee on Drug Prevention, cites some revealing statistics about drug abuse and crime. Cannabis use among students increased 250 percent from 1984 to 1992. During the same period, shootings rose 40 percent, car thefts increased 62 percent, and hold-ups rose 69 percent.[63]
Sweden legalized doctor prescriptions of amphetamines in 1965. During the first year of legalization, the number of intravenous"speed" addicts rose 88.5 percent. A study of men arrested during the legalization period showed a high correlation between intravenous use and a variety of crimes.[64]
Dr. Nils Bejorot, director of the Swedish Carnegie Institute and professor of social medicine at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, believes the solution to the growing drug problem is consistent social and legal harassment of both users and dealers.[65]
Great Britain experimented with controlled distribution of heroin between 1959 and 1968. According to the British Medical Journal, the number of heroin addicts doubled every sixteen months and the increase in addicts was accompanied by an increase in criminal activity as well.[66] And British authorities found that heroin addicts have a very good chance of dying prematurely. On the crime front, Scotland Yard had to increase its narcotics squad 100 percent to combat the crime caused by the "legal" addicts.[67]
The Swiss opened a "legalized drug" area in Zurich seven years ago and local addicts were given drugs, clean needles, and emergency medical care. Unfortunately, the liberal policy backfired and the number of addicts surged to 3,500; violence surged, too. "Needle Park," as it came to be known, was a place of open warfare among rival gangs, and even police faced gunfire. Their cars were attacked and overturned. In February 1995, officials ended the experiment, conceding that it had evolved into a grotesque spectacle.[68]
In April 1994, the mayors of 21 major European cities formed a group called "European Cities Against Drugs," an acknowledgement that legalization had failed.[69]
There are some countries, especially in the Middle East, which extract a high price for drug trafficking. These countries enjoy relative freedom from the plague of drug abuse and crime associated with illicit sales. This is never mentioned by Legalization proponents.
Many contend that the war on drugs is not working. This is not true. The key to stopping drugs is education, and during the past fifteen years that is what has been emphasized. From 1979 to 1994, the amount of people who used drugs was cut by more than fifty percent, from twenty-four million to around eleven million. Pretty strong statistics for an idea that is "not working".
We would able to get some money from taxing drugs if they were legalized, but we would lose more money than we would make in costs of drug treatment for addicts and in lost worker productivity. Take a look at alcohol, a legal drug. We spend 10.5 billion per year on health care involving alcohol, and an estimated 140 to 210 billion in lost worker productivity. 17,000 people a year are killed in alcohol related automobile accidents. The money we make off of the excise tax for alcohol is not worth this.
Do you really beleive less people would do drugs if they were legal? Such a thought defies common sense. The people that do like it will keep doing them. New people will try it and like it or get hooked. Therfore, the logical result seems to be an increase in usage.
the wsi isn't required for most lifeguarding. the city, however, i believe requires it for their pool staff as they also teach swimming lessons.
when i first got certified in fall of 93 i took it as a phy ed class at school. the cross's requirement was 500 yards in 8.5 minutes i believe. the time requirement from that has since been lifted. the teacher however, had the mile requirement as it was a school day class. and our alloted time for it was 35 minutes. i managed 30, but only after a semester's worth of building up to that by swimming a good long distance every day in class.
the teacher told me more than once that i should have tried out for the swim team. mostly becaue it was the only sport i would have had any chance at all of being any good at. i just had neither the time, not the inclination to join a team with 6 people on it. thats a lot of swimming at a meet. no thanks. and it took about 3 months to build up to the 30 minute time too.
And people like you can't help but keep defending him. Amazing since his actions were indefensible. He should be mentioned as often as possible as a prime example of immorality and selfishness. An example of how not to live. But beyond that Clinton keeps putting himself in the news. The latest being he had a "plan" to attack Al Queada and left it for Bush to implement. Of course, he didn't tell you the military said the plan wouldn't work.
Both sides do it, Rick. It's been going on for many years. When GW leaves office all the left-wingers will say: "See what he did while he was in! Shame on him!". I'm no fan of Clinton and I think he was a shady character, but I'm not too sure he went out of his way to hide the economy.
Random thought: Why do liberals think that it takes a village to raise a child but that adultery in a marriage is only the business of the husband and wife?
"And people like you can't help but keep defending him."
Please show the spot where I defended him.
Simply because I don't engage in daily hate-filled invective like you do, I suppose that makes me a Clinton defender. If that's a case, I'd be proud to be a defender. It's better than the classless crap you resort to.
Like I said, reading and listening to the daily barrage is starting to get funny,
Novak, Limbaugh and the right wing bloviators cannot stop talking Bill Clinton into the news. They're still breathless and angry. It's getting funny,
"bloviators?" I am not sure what it is but it doesn't sound like a good thing. "breathless and angry?" Your words are a defense by criticism of those that are viewed as attacking Clinton. The comments could be simply reasoned criticism. Your tactic was well learned, rick. Clinton and his crowd were masters of it.
Whether you say it "ain't gonna get it " is irrelevant. Clinton said he didn't have sex with that woman but simply because he said didn't make it true. Just because you say "I didn't make a defense for Clinton" doesn't mean it is true either.
Why don't you just let the Clinton comments go by? Can't resist defending him, I guess. It probably can only be explained on some a deep psychological level.
No not at all. When I first came by the boards at the old pioneer planet I thought it would be fun to post once or twice. I thought the name jethro bodine would be funny. It turns out I kept coming back. You pobably also remember me as Grim Reaper. I am thinking of a nmae change and would take suggestions. I am sure any suggestions you might have would be quite funny.
I think I got a few for ya' Jethro. How about Paul Wellstone ? :) Just kidding., you could stick with the southern theme ,how about Jefferson Davis or the charachter in the movie "Walking Tall" Bueford Pusser ? (sp)
What Blackmun doesn't seem to understand is that there was due process in the abortion cases. Those that supported abortion could petition the legislature to change the law.
(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.
(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.
(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life [410 U.S. 113, 165] may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.
Can anyone explain why the above isn't legislation?
Bill:
While alcohol is no great thing to combine with motor vehicles, it is fairly short lived. The guy smoking weed will get high today and kill me on the road tomorrow.
How does marijuana affect driving?
Marijuana affects many skills required for safe driving: alertness, the ability to concentrate, coordination, and reaction time. These effects can last up to 24 hours after smoking marijuana. Marijuana use can make it difficult to judge distances and react to signals and sounds on the road.
There are data showing that marijuana can play a role in crashes. When users combine marijuana with alcohol, as they often do, the hazards of driving can be more severe than with either drug alone.
A study of patients in a shock-trauma unit who had been in traffic accidents revealed that 15 percent of those who had been driving a car or motorcycle had been smoking marijuana, and another 17 percent had both THC and alcohol in their blood.
In one study conducted in Memphis, TN, researchers found that, of 150 reckless drivers who were tested for drugs at the arrest scene, 33 percent tested positive for marijuana, and 12 percent tested positive for both marijuana and cocaine. Data also show that while smoking marijuana, people show the same lack of coordination on standard "drunk driver" tests as do people who have had too much to drink
Here's the link:
http://www.geocities.com/healthmoon/smoking-marijuana/3.htm
It was legislating because it was a value judgment and not an interpretation of the constitution.
how would you be looking at it if they'd have gone off and banned abortion altogether?
and if it bases its decision on the language of the first amendment ("congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...", which thanks to the 14th amendment can just as easily read "neither congress nor any other legislative body shall make a law respecting an establishment of religion...", and i'm not gonna think about looking up any case law it may use), it'll uphold the circuit court decision. which i think we both agree would be a very very bad thing.
Which religion is being established by the words "under god" in the pledge of allegiance?
What I consider to be god, you may not. I consider the christian interpretation of God to be correct, but you may consider the muslim's interpretation or even money may be your god for that matter. The constitution has not been violated by the words "under god", because it has not established christianity or any other religion as a state religion.
What the framers of the constitution wanted to get away from was the example of England's establishment of the Catholic religion as being the only acceptable form of religion.
"Hey man! The WTC just got wasted, dude! Pass me some fritos, man. That Osama dude has a really cool beard man. Let's smoke a few more bowls and cash our welfare checks so we can get more pot."
Does this conversation sound like:
A) Someone on blood pressure meds?
B) Someone on allergy meds?
C) Someone on pain meds?
D) Someone driving with kids in the car?
E) Someone on the cell phone?
F) Or someone from the looney left smokin pot?
Let's just legalize everything! Coke, crack, uppers, downers, and in-betweeners. We can lead the way as the civilized stoner country where nobody cares about anything.
"Or someone from the looney left smokin pot? "
I bet there is a conservative or two who has smoked pot before. And they'd probably make less sense than those two.
I waffle on drug legalization. If it's done in a organized and controlled manner isn't it better than continuing to enrich organized crime? Why continue turning thugs and killers into millionaires who can scoff at society and the law? The expense, time and effort for enforcement of the laws is horrendous.
On the other hand, I just don't know if this is the kind of country that can carry it out. Other countries can function just fine without even having a drinking age. I tend to think we're not a mature enough people to handle that.
I tried pot when I was younger. I couldn't stand it. I don't get why anyone would want to feel that way. Especially those that do it all the time.
Anyway, I think it should be legalized, taxed, and regulated.
Take the crime out of it. Leave the jails open for real criminals.
It's sick that rapists get less time than drug dealers.
they certainly do have a drinking age, rick.
you have to be old enough to be tall enough to be seen at the bar. then again, if you look at those countries, consuming alcohol responsibly has been a part of daily life for centuries. makes one wonder what happened when they arrived here that took away the responsibly part.
Hey I resent that ;)
Yes I've smoked pot and inhaled. Although I think I made more sense than those two, I'm sure some would take issue with that :)
I haven't done it for years and one thing i noticed is that friends I knew in school who did it alot and are still doing it are well.......not much different or better off than they were in high school. Could be a coincidence but the ones who still do aren't doing well socially, maybe they are happy, I hope so, to each their own.
I am conflicted on it too. Drug use is and has been declining.
Yes there are costs with the war on drugs but there are social costs to legalizing it too. If it's legalized the country is essentially saying go ahead and do it. Pot can be a gateway drug to harder drugs. I look at it this way, we have done a 180 in many ways socially from the late 50's or early 60's. Some good and some bad. But look at what some of the loosening up has brought us. Not saying those times were perfect either but in many ways it's day and night socially, I would say not to the better in some cases. Do we really need to add another problem to the mix ?
"I look at it this way, we have done a 180 in many ways socially from the late 50's or early 60's. Some good and some bad. But look at what some of the loosening up has brought us."
To use a '60s term, I think we are people with fewer "hang ups" now as well. We confront race issues in more mature way. Ask a woman if she'd want to go back to her role the 50s.
"Do we really need to add another problem to the mix ? "
Drug legalization is supposed to be a solution. But, like I said, I don't know if the US is the kind of country that can handle it.
Drug legalization will not be a solution. It is propaganda by those that want to do what are now illegal drugs legally.
The Court's opinion brings to the decision of this troubling question both extensive historical fact and a wealth of legal scholarship. While the opinion thus commands my respect, I find myself nonetheless in fundamental disagreement, etc., etc., etc....
fold wrote: You didn't post a LINK to this particular post, Jethro???
Here you go. I wanted people to read the dissenting opinion before their bias kicked in. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=410&page=113
I don't do drugs yet belive it should be legal.
The war on drugs has been a complete failure.
Time to try something new.
Rick
That's why I said some good and some bad, we've come along way in those regards and it's a good thing. I was referring to our attitudes towards sex, drugs, etc. Remember "if it feels good do it?" Some might say it's a good thing. Something has changed and it can't be pointed to one thing, but in 1965 I don't remember hearing of mass school shootings, kids being kidnapped and raped almost daily, kids killing kids. violence at new levels. Those things happened but not to that extent they do today, why ? What has changed ? Is it our attiudes or the social envioment we are exposed to. All I'm saying is adding another thing into the mix is probably not a good idea. I see other peoples points and admit I'm conflicted but it hasn't been a great success in places where it is legalized.
The war on drugs has been a complete failure.
It hasn't been a complete failure. How many people do not do drugs that would if they were legal? What impact to society would occur if drugs were made legal and more people did them. We already have enough trouble with alcohol.
How many people do not do drugs that would if they were legal?
How many do them because they are illegal, and therefore taboo?
What impact to society would occur if drugs were made legal and more people did them.
How many less would do them if they were legal?
We already have enough trouble with alcohol.
We sure do. Think making alcohol illegal is going to stop drinking?
All you can provide is "What if". Slippery slope arguments with nothing to back them up.
THX,
I don't think it's a complete failure, drug use has been dropping for years.
I think alot more would if we removed the penalties around it and took the taboo away from it, much more so than the people that try it because it's taboo.
I'm curious do you think we should legalize all drugs, Coke, crack, heroin, lsd, acid, etc. or just pot ?
How many do them because they are illegal, and therefore taboo?
how many times jt have your kids done something you told them not to just because you told them not to. legalise 'em and take the glamour of using them away.
Ares,
O.K but how many times have kids also NOT done something because the parent told them no ? Legalizing it takes the stigma away.
i'm sure that happens more times than the scenario i proposed happens, rob. but in the 4 years i spent as a
glorified babysitterlifeguard, more often than not, kids would do something because i told them they couldn't do it. and the kids i was guarding over were the sort who were a lot more, shall we say, at risk of becoming drug users, just because of the sort of home-life they had.I see what you're saying Ares, but there are a million things we have a taboo on that people don't do because their parents told them not to do so or their moral fiber tells them it's wrong.
Here's some info I found on the net that seems to be pretty well put together. It has a bunch of stuff on there but here's a few excerpts.
http://www.sarnia.com/groups/antidrug/argument/myths.html
http://www.mdle.com/legdrugs.htm
Do you really beleive less people would do drugs if they were legal? Such a thought defies common sense. The people that do like it will keep doing them. New people will try it and like it or get hooked. Therfore, the logical result seems to be an increase in usage.
east and skyway ymca's, spring '94 to spring '98.
:: you mean we were supposed to be watching the pool??? ::
the wsi isn't required for most lifeguarding. the city, however, i believe requires it for their pool staff as they also teach swimming lessons.
when i first got certified in fall of 93 i took it as a phy ed class at school. the cross's requirement was 500 yards in 8.5 minutes i believe. the time requirement from that has since been lifted. the teacher however, had the mile requirement as it was a school day class. and our alloted time for it was 35 minutes. i managed 30, but only after a semester's worth of building up to that by swimming a good long distance every day in class.
the teacher told me more than once that i should have tried out for the swim team. mostly becaue it was the only sport i would have had any chance at all of being any good at. i just had neither the time, not the inclination to join a team with 6 people on it. thats a lot of swimming at a meet. no thanks. and it took about 3 months to build up to the 30 minute time too.
The Commerce Department's painful report last week that the national economy is worse than anticipated obscured the document's startling revelation. Hidden in the morass of statistics, there is proof that the Clinton administration grossly overestimated the strength of the economy leading up to the 2000 election. Did the federal government join Enron and WorldCom in cooking the books?
Novak, Limbaugh and the right wing bloviators cannot stop talking Bill Clinton into the news. They're still breathless and angry. It's getting funny,
They've forgotten the old saying: There's no such thing as bad publicity. I'm sure all Clinton cares about is that they spell his name right.
He's out of office two years and they can't stop hammering him. But that backfires.
Clinton doesn't need a TV show: He OWNS TV.
And people like you can't help but keep defending him. Amazing since his actions were indefensible. He should be mentioned as often as possible as a prime example of immorality and selfishness. An example of how not to live. But beyond that Clinton keeps putting himself in the news. The latest being he had a "plan" to attack Al Queada and left it for Bush to implement. Of course, he didn't tell you the military said the plan wouldn't work.
The liberals motto is "hide the truth it'll keep us in power." The motto of an honest person is: "admit the truth and it well set you free."
Both sides do it, Rick. It's been going on for many years. When GW leaves office all the left-wingers will say: "See what he did while he was in! Shame on him!". I'm no fan of Clinton and I think he was a shady character, but I'm not too sure he went out of his way to hide the economy.
Maybe Clinton didn't go out of his way to hide the economy (and that is what Novak said) but he the kind of man that would do such a thing.
Random thought: Why do liberals think that it takes a village to raise a child but that adultery in a marriage is only the business of the husband and wife?
"And people like you can't help but keep defending him."
Please show the spot where I defended him.
Simply because I don't engage in daily hate-filled invective like you do, I suppose that makes me a Clinton defender. If that's a case, I'd be proud to be a defender. It's better than the classless crap you resort to.
Like I said, reading and listening to the daily barrage is starting to get funny,
Please show the spot where I defended him:
Novak, Limbaugh and the right wing bloviators cannot stop talking Bill Clinton into the news. They're still breathless and angry. It's getting funny,
"bloviators?" I am not sure what it is but it doesn't sound like a good thing. "breathless and angry?" Your words are a defense by criticism of those that are viewed as attacking Clinton. The comments could be simply reasoned criticism. Your tactic was well learned, rick. Clinton and his crowd were masters of it.
That ain't gonna get it jethro. I didn't make a defense for Clinton.
Wanna try again?
Whether you say it "ain't gonna get it " is irrelevant. Clinton said he didn't have sex with that woman but simply because he said didn't make it true. Just because you say "I didn't make a defense for Clinton" doesn't mean it is true either.
Why don't you just let the Clinton comments go by? Can't resist defending him, I guess. It probably can only be explained on some a deep psychological level.
Maybe there's some deep psychological reason for you taking the name of one of the most notorious twits in the history of television.
No not at all. When I first came by the boards at the old pioneer planet I thought it would be fun to post once or twice. I thought the name jethro bodine would be funny. It turns out I kept coming back. You pobably also remember me as Grim Reaper. I am thinking of a nmae change and would take suggestions. I am sure any suggestions you might have would be quite funny.
Awright, jethro, I'll give you a cool one, though I don't know why I should:
CK Dexter Haven
It was the name of Cary Grant's character in "The Philadelphia Story"
CK Dexter Haven
It was the name of Cary Grant's character in "The Philadelphia Story"
That was a good movie. I'll take it under advisement. What was Jimmy Stewart's character's name in that movie?
I think I got a few for ya' Jethro. How about Paul Wellstone ? :) Just kidding., you could stick with the southern theme ,how about Jefferson Davis or the charachter in the movie "Walking Tall" Bueford Pusser ? (sp)
Buford Pusser! Now that IS a name!!!
Sorry, fold, I don't want to use any of your nicknames. Twit!
Macauley Connor
Howdy, Pards.
I'm just passing through.
Then it's back to my promotional book tour: "Punk-Ass White Boys Give Good Head" (something I found penciled in on the wall of a Biffy in a Jiffy).
Best wishes, and adios.
Re: Posts 1529 & 1530
Are such personal attacks warranted or acceptable?