Still ANOTHER Reason to not like Ashcroft...

[ElFenix]

bork? you mean robert bork? the man who believe the constitution authorized gov't interference in people's lives but not in the realm of business? that guy was simply wrong in his reading of the constitution. i'm glad he wasn't appointed.

 

[ToBeMe]

BTW Triple........so do I......my wifes cousin is some guy named Kit Bond...............

 

[Mill]

<< Regardless of how Ashcroft's comments or actions make him look, I am sure Bush could have chosen someone else. Red did you see how Trent Lott also interviewed for that &quot;terrific&quot; magazine. Also Ashcroft recieved a honorary degree from Bob Jones University. What the!$@$@#$%#$ People like this don't need to be put in a position where their integrity can be called into question. Postions as imporant as Attorney General need to be held by people who are respected. And to nominate a person like this who has been involved in some very serious and questionable situations like he has is wrong. I do believe its okay to chose someone along party lines though. But Bush needs to chose someone in which the character of the person can not be questioned. Ashcroft would be IMHO the wrong person to hold a postion as imporant as Attorney General. There are too many......shall we say &quot;dark spots&quot; in his past. >>



Classy why do you always have to play the race card? Just wondering why everyone you dislike is racist.

 

[Corn]

ElFenix, while I agree with your assesment of Bork's interpretation of the consititution, this fact became known after his book and is not the reason he was not appointed.

My point was that dirty politics has been around longer than the past 8 years and the battle cry of &quot;payback is a beyotch&quot; by the &quot;victimized&quot; Demoncrats actually lends credibility the the &quot;Republican inquisition&quot; we've had to endure throughout the Clinton administration. The 'Pubs aren't the only party with dirty hands--IMNSHO both parties have miserably failed their respective constituency.

 

[rahvin]

<<EVERY civil war book I've read (lots of them, anyway) makes it a point that Lincoln thought very highly of Lee and wanted him to command union armies.>>

This is absolutely true. Before the civil war started Lincoln offered command of the union forces to Lee. He thought it over and decided that his state loyalty(confederate declared) was more important than the nation and very reluctantly turned down the position and signed on as the confederate general. Had Stonewall Jackson (a very brilliant field commander) survived (instead of being killed by idiots on his own side) the war may have ended very differently.

<<thomas l. connelly wrote in a 1969 essay published in Civil War History about how bad lee was with strategic views, he left the western confederacy open to attack, and criticized the general's tactical ability as well. and his political skill. says grant exhibited all these traits, although grant certainly exhibited no political skill when he was president. this was just the article representative of revisionist views of the civil war, so its the only one i've had to read, being a survey course from 1600 to 1900 on military history.>>

Lee didn't have a choice, the south had no money to pay troops, no money to buy equipment and no money to do anything. The war effort was completely supported by volunteers bringing their own weapons (All Lee had to do was feed them, provide basic living accomidations and provide ammunition, in most cases he was unable to even accomplish this). The north had 10x the resources, manpower and industry of the south. Consider this, during the civil war the homestead act was passed and the expansion west took place. The north devoted very little of their total resources to the war like the south did. The north won the civil war through resource deprival. Shermans march (and the culmination of burning atlanta to the ground) was the nail in the coffin, he destroyed everything on his way, killed, raped, pillaged and generally ripped the heart of the south out. Lee never had a chance in a protracted war with the northern states, had the war ended after the first year the south probably would have been declared the winner. Oh I'm rambling, but the point is Lee was a brilliant general without the resources to fight a suppier force in arms, equipment and numbers. Most agriculture based nations wouldn't stand a chance against industrial nations (the situation in north vs. south).

 

[I'm Typing]

Max, I am damn happy to be on your list. More Ashcroft atrocities to follow...

 

[DonaldDuck82]

<< It has everything to do with decency and a sense of equal,fair play. He has not demonstrated that capability. >>



Could you or someone who is being entirely irrational about this please show me one instance where Sen. Ashcroft has no demostrated this ability. As it is anyway, Ashcroft's job is not to do everything with a sense of equal and fair play, that is the job of the legislature, all Ashcroft will do is enforce their rules.

 

[Recneps]

Could you or someone who is being entirely irrational about this please show me one instance where Sen. Ashcroft has no demostrated this ability. As it is anyway, Ashcroft's job is not to do everything with a sense of equal and fair play, that is the job of the legislature, all Ashcroft will do is enforce their rules.

looks like there is no need to bring up examples because you already said he doesn't have to enforce the law equally or at all?

 

[classy]

Ashcroft said what he said. Ashcroft done what he done. I didn't say he was a racist. But he recieved a honorary degree from a college that opposed inter racial dating. He did an interview for a racially biased magazine. If he isn't &quot;pigmently challenged&quot;, he damn sure has got some problems. There are more than 200 organizations that oppose the nomination of Ashcroft. I pointed out the things that concern me being black. So I guess all 200 groups are black??? I think not. As matter of fact several white groups went public with their opposition first. And most of those groups are white. So I guess there are some WHITE people that don't like him either. Only a ding dong would not want any answers to some of the very questionable things concerning Ashcroft. You damn straight I want to know where he stands on certain issues concerning minorities. Since some of you fairys are not minorities you could care less about how feels about people like myself. But I do. There is something wrong when a man of his questionable character is nominated for postion in the presidents cabinet. After all he is only being nominated for Attorney General for god sakes.

 

[DonaldDuck82]

and i am sure there are NO black people that like him either, and i am wandering how many organizations support him?

 

[Michael]

classy - Ashcroft is a Christian Conservative who opposes abortion. He will naturally draw the attention of every liberal group out there. I wonder if they, the white liberal groups that first voiced opposition, were the ones that first tried to tar him with the racist brush.

The liberals lost the election and they do not control the House or the Senate. I expect them to vigorously challenge Ashcroft's election, as is their duty and what the system needs to function properly. However, their disagreeing with his opinions is not grounds for him not being elected.

I have seen plenty of news stories where minorities and others have praised his fairness and stating that he is a man who lives his beliefs. If he is truly a racist (not just being called a racist by those who oppose him), then I expect it will be made plain and clear during the confirmation hearings.

His support of big business makes me a natural ally. Although I am pro choice enough to not want to make abortion illegal, I am anti-abortion in my heart and that would make him my ally as well. I will carefully consider the evidence presented before deciding he is a racist. If he is truly a racist, then he is my enemy, not my ally.

Michael

 

[classy]

Its amazing how when I question a persons actions associated with race I am using the race card. For a black person like myself race is an important issue. It doesn't wash off. Well let me make an official statement, for me how a person views issues that affect minorities is my first order of judgement. I found out that Ashcroft belongs to an Assembly of God Church. That is pretty powerful. To me they are a very good Christian denomination. As a matter of fact I own many good christian books that were written by Assembly of God ministers that have helped me in life. So for him to belong to a church denomination of that caliber and be associated with some of the things he is connected with through word and deed, I found it surprising to say the least. But I am not saying he is a racist. But some of his actions are questionable. Enough so that I as an American I would be leary of his response to certain issues he clearly is going to have to deal with. Now to those who judge me when I bring these things up are not faced with the issues I am faced with. Now if you want to live in denial of certain things fine. But for me its reality. And so far I have no problem with Bush. To be honest I kinda like the guy. I agree with a ban on partial birth abortion as well as other things. In many things I agree with changes proposed by the GOP, but not the methods. And if you read my posts before, my problem is this. What he is or is not is not the issue. But what he has said and done is. Does it represent a man that is completely unbiased and can he be trusted to do a fair job? Well from what I have read and researched I come away with some very mixed feelings. To the point I am sure President Bush could nominate a person who would support his views and would not have such a checkered and questionable past.

 

[etech]

Classy
&quot;Since some of you fairys are not minorities&quot;

Nothing needs to be said to that, it pretty well says enough all by itself.

 

[Michael]

classy - that is the basic question. Not what his personal views are, but can he be trusted to do the job. I would say that everything I have seen says he can. Will he concentrate in areas where some liberals want him to? Probably not, but they're had 8 years.

Michael

 

[Tripleshot]

etech

Nothing needs to be said to that, it pretty well says enough all by itself.

But it sure speaks load and clear about your character. Of all the things this man has posted,you diregard it and post this.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who wonders about you and your motives.

Nothing needs to be said to that, it pretty well says enough all by itself.

 

[etech]

What does it say about my charcter Tripleshot?, I havn't lied and refused to back up false claims about Bush's nominees as you have. My character is fine, worry about yours and your troubles with the truth.

If Classy is the sort of person to resort to calling everyone who disagrees with him a fairy it also reveals much about his character as well.

Tripleshot, putting it in bold does not make it any more true.

 

[Corn]

Careful there etech or you might draw the ire of DoubleChin if you keep pointing out his and his buddy's own hypocritical behavior, he'll threaten to kick your limey a$$.

You are quite correct about Classless, while preaching &quot;racial tolerance&quot; (and calling people scumbags, etc....) he uses insults that sting a minority group (just a different minority group than his) as much as the &quot;n&quot; word stings himself when a white man utters it.



<< But this guy Ashcroft is a true scum bag. If this lowlife is confirmed Attorney General I better .......... >>



Classless, that above quote rings truer when your name is mentioned and one day you'll wake up and see the ugly face of bigotry when you look in the mirror. Hopefully it's sooner than later, because when that day arrives, then and there after you might actually make a difference and be a real ambassador for racial harmony. The difference between Ashcroft and yourself is that while you have to attempt to try and &quot;dig up&quot; dirt on him, you are openly racist and bigoted and should be treated like the scum bag that you are.

My wife's family does not accept me because I am not Jewish, and they have made it plainly clear they will not accept our children as well because my German genes (I kid you not, this is what they've said) will pollute their family. One thing is for sure, insulting them using terms like &quot;scum bags&quot; will solve nothing, and even though it has never been deserved, I still treat her family graciously and politely--because that's what will ultimately change there minds about me as a person--not my genetic makeup, but how I act in caring for my wife and children. I'm sure my kindness towards them frustrates some in that family--it is, after all, difficult to hate someone that does not hate you back.