• We should now be fully online following an overnight outage. Apologies for any inconvenience, we do not expect there to be any further issues.

What do Robert Bork and John Ashcroft have in common?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,270
103
106
Just because Ashcroft has certain beliefs does not in any way mean that he can't uphold the laws of the land, as they exist. Remember that the AG does not make the laws, he or she just has to uphold them. Just because I don't agree with something doesn't mean I can't do my job and follow the guidlines. Ashcroft is a good man, and those that know him and have worked with him know it (Dems and Repubs)... and hence, he will be confirmed, despite the liberal media hatchet job, and despite the lies spread about him.

 

Shuxclams

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
9,286
15
81
This White thing is a side issue IMHO, actually it probably isnt a issue at all. Me like Joclyn Elders? Could you clarify? ;)




SHUX
 

Shuxclams

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
9,286
15
81
tagej,
How in good consience can the man who is completly against those things defend them 100%? Do you know any hindu's that work in a meat packing company that ships ground hamburger? It just doesnt make any sense then does it, unless the agenda is to be lax on issues such as defending the rights of people to safe access to medical proceedures, and possibly tougher on issues of censorship. It is flawed, nothing any of you
conservatives
can say can change those facts, people are very much influenced by their beliefs in how they view anything. Yes the AG doesnt have the last say in legal matters, but they do have the first.


I still don't see it as a "Liberal slander" deal, for me it was immeadiate, Ashcroft has always been one of the major "whackos" in the senate, even more so than Helms or Thurmond, heck these new fangled "Right-Wing" Senators and Representatives are all pretty scary IMO.



SHUX
 

Shuxclams

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
9,286
15
81
[/b]

<< Unlike Reno, he will uphold the law as it is written. >>


Refresh my memory here Tom, which laws did she break or not uphold?








SHUX
 

Eowyn

Member
Dec 21, 2000
44
0
0
OH I forgot, there are a bunch of religious groups in that republikan party who advocate &quot;abstinance&quot; and &quot;just say no&quot;. thats great, is it any wonder that teenagers in the south are contracting AIDS as fast as the gay population? I say good riddens to the next generation of bible thumping freaks. :)

Shuxclams,

No smiley in the universe can make this statement of yours less offensive. :|

Please withhold your favorite slur and do not call me a 'turd'. Save your feces; you need them to stuff the hole in your head.
 

MrPALCO

Banned
Nov 14, 1999
2,064
0
0
I find the near hysteria by those who oppose the new Bush government, ammusing. Is it shocking to realize that Bush will implement the items he ran on?

Is it even more shocking that members of his cabinet include an anointed Christian like Ashcroft? Remember, we helped Bush get in.

Bush and his government expect the bitter vanquished Democrat machine to yap at their heels, while they march on to Victory.

As far as the worries over Ashcroft, if you don't agree with the upholding of the Law as it is on the Books, you should be very worried. There are many Laws that have been overlooked and misinterpreted by the Clinton gang . I expect a thorough review of existing cases in the Justice department, with indictments of Law breakers if warranted, including Clinton.

John Ashcroft knows how to read US Code, something his predecessors seem to be lacking in. John Ashcroft is going to make a great Attorney General of the United States.

:)
 

Tominator

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,559
1
0
Hell Shux! Just look at your pictures. You could be relatives!:)

She and you spout off a lot but don't say anything useful....and talking about masturbation as an alternative form of birth control....come on! Get real! She is a loon. [ Loon? Another way you are alike...LOL;)]

John Ashcroft is against busing, abortion and for the death penalty. To top it off he even believes in God! Those items alone are enough to send every Liberal in existence into the bunker to prepare for WWIII.

Reno screwed up Waco and Ruby Ridge to start. Even after her own advisors recommended various investigations into the Clinton Whitehouse, she said no to them. Some resigned and others just went elsewhere in disgust. Reno has done nothing but bail Clinton's ass out of the fire time after time. That's the short story.

If you are the 'Libertarian' you claim to be, I'd think you'd be thrilled that the Attourney General will only enforce laws on the books and not create loopholes at every turn.....but that is a big IF!:frown:
 

Shuxclams

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
9,286
15
81


<< No smiley in the universe can make this statement of yours less offensive. >>



Then you have gotten the point then havent you, you reap what you sow.


Millions of MrPALCO's is what America can look forward to if we continue to bow to the Religious right.



SHUX
 

Shuxclams

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
9,286
15
81
Tom,
Busing and the Death Penalty are fine, and I can agree, still the guys is a fanatic not mainstream. America was founded by those that were being persicuted in europe for their beliefs, maryland was a catholic state, it still has the vatican emblem on it, quakers, puritins etc... all fled persicution from the respective goverments that made thier religion and beliefs law, that is what seperation of church and state is really about. All the fundamentalist will argue over and over that America was founded by Born-agains........what a crock, they had no intrest in giving any religion any power in our goverment, and neither should we. Loopholes are subjective and maybe Reno's beliefs made her judgement flawed, I suggest that Ashcroft will be suceptable to those same types of mistakes. I hardly see him defending the rights of those things that he does not believe are moral, without alot of pursuasion.




SHUX
 

MrPALCO

Banned
Nov 14, 1999
2,064
0
0


<< I hardly see him defending the rights of those things that he does not believe are moral, without alot of pursuasion. >>



You are correct, that is one of the spoils of political Victory.

The attention and resources given to cases that come up, are subject to certain reasonable and customary allocating of resources by the AG.

Certainly you can expect his relationship with God and his Word, to guide him in areas with out clear US Code.

:)

 

Tominator

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,559
1
0
If you believe the Liberal Democrat's personal attacks on him, I can see your point.

I'm unsure of the name of the denomination he claims, but I am sure he will uphold the law. The fact he is religeous and that some are afraid of this only shows that his morals and his stance are not understood.

Most of my beliefs are the same as his.

The Liberals are absolutely afraid that the Law will be upheld. They must ignore the Law to further their agenda. Ashcroft, in this appointment, has no say so in regards to what laws he enforces. I disagree with abortion, but killing doctors and pro-abortion people is just as much murder as anything else.

I could enforce laws I do not agree with and so can Ashcroft.
 

Eowyn

Member
Dec 21, 2000
44
0
0
I have finally made up my mind on the matter of which troll is more offensive, Shuxclams or I'm Typing. I vote for Shux, since he is considerably less articulate, and phrases his thoughts in ways that annoy even those who agree with him.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,750
6,765
126
Torm: &quot;Moonbeam, White should have never been nominated. He lacked in experience compared to the other Judges. He had no business being nominated to begin with. He was there because he was black.&quot;

Sounds like you're talking about Bush who was there because of his vast lack of experience but could win. Opposing him for being soft on crime, and he wasn't 70% of the time, was a nice way to oppose him? You got funny ideas about truth there Mr. Rationalization. Was the not nice way to oppose him for being black? There wasn't an issue about White before A$$crack got involved. Nobody was running around screaming inexperienced. He went to the sheriffs etc. to drum up opposition for one reason only, to win the election. What a man! Religion's all well and good, I guess, until you have to live by it.
 

Shuxclams

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
9,286
15
81
Tom,
I am not sure of the exact Denomination but it is of &quot;Calvinist&quot; belief, hence the reference to Smoking, Drinking, and Dancing. I believe I have read all about his (Grandfathers, Fathers) church on his website. I am not suggesting that Mr. Ashcroft is a bad person or is unqualified, I am suggesting that he is not the person nor any person with the beliefs should get a position of that type of sensitivity. Had he been nominated to Housing or Transportation I would not care as much, even though I would still disagree with allowing &quot;fundimenatlist&quot; into any part of the goverment save representing his constituancy. i.e; Senator, Mayor, Representative etc...





SHUX
 

Tominator

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,559
1
0
Moonbeam

I'll bet you did not speak out against Clinton, a man vastly less experienced than Bush.

Shux

Would you be for someone that hid their beliefs and yet let those same beliefs influence his decisions?

Imho, your fears are groundless.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,750
6,765
126
Torm, I would guess that Clinton's IQ is probably nearly double Bush's. I would bet his absorbtion of informantion many times more. Clinton probably had Bushes experience as a teenager.

We were, I think, talking about A$$crack. My reaction to Clinton's level of experience has nothing to do with anything. But if you must know, as a liberal dedicated to the highest principles of truth, justice, and the American way, :D without regard to personal cost or desire :D, I had to speak out against Clinton to all those who wouldn't listen and say that I could not support his run for the White House because he was unfaithful to his wife.

The price I paid for my truth was everything I believed. I can turn on a dime if the truth does.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,750
6,765
126
Red, a man shouldn't be denied for his religious beliefs? What if his religion says non believers should be burned at the stake? One excellent reason to not confirm A$$crack is that he wouldn't confirm himself. He rejected many seeking to be confirmed because he said they were too far outside the political norm. A$$cract is a political extremist and should be rejected.
 

Eowyn

Member
Dec 21, 2000
44
0
0
There's no need for your holiness to come in here preaching the Gospel of Red Assed Right Wing Politics and then telling those whom you disagree with they are trolls.

Trolling has little to do with one's ideology. A troll is characterized by the contemptuous terms in which he phrases his opinions and the vulgar insults to which he resorts when cornered. There are many well-respected members of this board who are capable of expressing their political and religious beliefs in a civilized, sometimes even eloquent, fashion. Calling people 'turds' and inviting opponents to 'blow me', as Shuxclams has done here, is trollery in its most childish form, and it takes no Red Assed Right Winger to see that.

Eowyn, if you don't like what he has to say then get the hell out of his thread.

Oops, is this the touchy-feely politically-correct forum where one may enter a thread only to say nice things that make the thread's originator feel good about himself? Get real. This thread was obviously an invitation to debate. If everyone who disagrees stays out of the thread, we end up with nothing but Shux and Red Dawn patting each other on the back. Phooey.
 

Tominator

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,559
1
0
Red Dawn
Well said!....I think...;) Amoung the few here, I ,Mooney and Shux and evev Red himself we fight and dodge and even namecall from time to time. All of us respect each other...I fervently hope!

Possibly I was unclear in my accusation. White was nominated BECAUSE he was Black! Not because of his qualifications to be on the Supreme Court of Missouri. Affirmative Action at it's finest. Combine that with his pro-abortion stance and his written and documented opinion on crime, and what Republican looking at all the facts would not oppose him!



Moonbeam
I'll choose a moral man over IQ every time. Clinton never finished college. Bush did. Clinton never served his country. Bush did. Even as President, Clinton never served his country! His only service was to himself! Almost literally Legions of his loyal went down in flames to save his ass! Over 70 are dead from their association with him, directly or indirectly. That is not Right Wing rheortic, it is fact!


I'll say again. The Democrats have but one goal in the next 2 years....prevent Bush from accomplishing ANYTHING! There will be no bipartisanship! That's a crock. No joining. Clinton has already started attacking Bush as an illegitimate President. It is WAR!!! And the spoils go to the winer....ah winner...

:confused:
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,750
6,765
126
Torm, let me say it again, I didn't vote for the guy with the IQ. Wait tell we find out about the missing National Guard years before you extoll Bush's service. Oh and one more thing. Bush lost the election. He won the selection. The difference is everything. Am I glad he's not a Democrat.

Took that accidental k outa Tormk like I first typed in case ya thought it was supposed ta have some signifigance, which it wern't.
 

Tominator

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,559
1
0
Moonbeam..I want to thank you! You have cemented and solidified why I could NEVER be a Liberal! God bless you for that...:)
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,750
6,765
126
OK, so let me translate. Torm says thanks for cementing and solidifying why he could never be a liberal. That means that if a conservative adulterer runs for pres he will vote for him anyway cause Moonbeam wouldn't and didn't vote for Clinton. Or does it mean that Torm knows where Bush was when he was missing from the guard and those of us who don't...........well I don't know. Or does it mean that Torm can't be a liberal cause it would mean being honest about who really got the Florida vote. Or does it mean that Torm is proud that it was a Republican that was the first to stop the count and win by 5 to 4. Remember Thomas, the most qualified candidate for the supreme court. If they'd dumped him and gotten a real justice, Gore might be pres. What a victory.

Or maybe, if it ain't too much effort you would clarify your inegmatic comment. And please don't bless me for your curse. I look for understanding not belief that is cement. That's just a kind of atrophy.