The Sunday Morning Talk Shows (Review)
By Mark Kilmer Posted in Elections — Comments (51) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The highlight of this week, though certainly not for the purposes of this review, was probably Chris Wallace's interview with his dad. That dynamic is endearing.
On to the STUFF. Ted Kennedy went on MTP and declared that there exists a "right wing litmus test" which Harriet Miers failed but Sam Alito passes. He is paranoid about this, wonder's what's up with Alito. On FNS, John McCain said that an "extraordinary circumstance," triggering the Gang of 14's "filibusters are permissible" option, deals only with "qualifications and judgment." This puts him in the Graham/DeWine camp on this matter.
On FNS, Schumer screwed up his Reagan timeline, declaring that President Reagan gave his speech at the Brandenburg Gate AFTER the Iran-Contra matter had been settled. Actually, the final report was not issued until five months after the speech.
On MTP, Tom Coburn stunned Tim Russert by stating that he would vote for judicial nominees who were not rigidly bound to his agenda. (Blows Russert's assumption.)
On FTN, Dick Durbin declared that the President needs "competency… trust… and values" to get out of his rut, and that this required "cleaning house." (On TW, Chuck Hagel said that the President needed to be "direct, honest, and competent.") Durbin also smirked when he underscored that the Senate Intelligence Committee's Phase II report might "possibly harm" the President. He wants us to think he knows something.
On FTN, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts liked John McCain's torture legislation, though not directly, to "chapter one of the al Qaeda Handbook." On LE, British Defense Secretary John Reid shredded Wolf Blitzer's questions about SIXTEEN WORDS™, DOWNING STREET MEMO™, and BUSH LIED™. And Ed Gillespie and Terence McAuliffe yelled at each other.
And on TW, Joe Biden and Chuck Hagel agreed.
Read on for the full, show-by-show review…
TEDDY KENNEDY ON MTP. On NBC, Meet the Press host Tim Russert sat down with Teddy Kennedy, and the two shared a pleasant chat. Tim confronted Ted with the nice things he had said about Judge Samuel Alito when the judge was confirmed to sit on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Ted explained: "That was for a lower court, and that was fifteen years ago."
So it was, but Ted is not disturbed by Judge Alito so much as "by the process." He is disturbed by the "right wing litmus test" which Harriet Miers failed but Judge Alito has passed. He said that he is concerned about the right wing enthusiasm over Judge Alito: "What do they know that we don't?"
Tim cited a WashPost article regarding the FBI looking at the intimate details of our personal lives and asked Ted: "Do you regret having voted for the Patriot Act?" Ted did not answer the question, explaining that "Americans are concerned about their own privacy issues." Russert wanted to know if all information collected by the FBI but not used in a prosecution should be destroyed, and Ted agreed.
Tim asked Ted about the mandatory ethics refresher the President has ordered for White House staff. Ted thinks that ethics requires "more than a class." The White House, he said, is "damaged and tarnished." [Irony.]
"We are being subsumed by scandal after scandal," Ted said. He listed "scandals," and he included Hurricane Katrina. And Ted agreed with Tim that "certainly, Karl Rove ought to" be tossed out. He wants the President to start over with a policy of "openness" and "truthfulness."
Without a question, Tim allowed Ted to change his "GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW" call. Ted now wants the White House to agree with him that the "Iraqis have to have a nation worth fighting for." After this December 15 election, Ted said, we should start to talk about withdrawing our troops.
That's not Ted's plan, but Tim let it be Ted's plan for this morning.
JOHN MCCAIN ON FNS. FOX News Sunday host Chris Wallace got to interview Senator John McCain this morning, and he asked the senator if Karl Rove should be cut loose if it is proven that he was complicit in leaking 007 Plame's name. "I don't think so," McCain answered, explaining that no laws were violated, there were a lot of factors, and what the President does with his staff "is his business." He acknowledged some problems, but added: "We can recover." This was a tacit acknowledgement by McCain that he feels close enough to this White House and what it is doing to refer to it as "we." Or, for aught I know, he might have been talking about the party.
McCain said that he will push his "torture" legislation "as far as I have to." He noted that the Israelis passed anti-torture legislation, complained that our country's "perception" suffers, and said that terrorist mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed ought to be psyched into giving up secrets, as torture is does not work
.
Wallace asked McCain about the Gang of 14 and a possible Dem filibuster of Judge Alito. McCain doesn't see the filibuster happening, observed that "each [Democrat] member makes up his own mind." He sees nothing so far which is "seen as a significant concern which might lead to a filibuster." He said that the Republicans in the Gang of 14 agree that an Extraordinary Circumstance, as per the agreement, can be only a problem with "qualifications and judgment."
Wallace asked McCain "the obligatory 2006 question," acknowledging that McCain has stated repeatedly that he had not made up his mind on whether or not to run. The question was, what would a "President McCain do differently" than what is being done by this President? McCain laughed about avoiding second term problems. Folks, John McCain would be 76-years-old when he began a hypothetical second term. I'll leave it at that.
CHUCKIE SCHUMER ON FNS. Wallace next talked to Senator Chuckie Schumer (D-New York). Schumer repeated what he said last week about a "sort of a hunker-down, bunker mentality" in the White House, and that President Bush can be either Nixon or Reagan. The White House, he said, wants to ignore everything and admit no mistakes. He sees a "pattern of problems in the White House." He sees the White House as not addressing ethics questions; rather, they attack, he says, the person asking the questions.
Chuckie said that President Reagan recovered from Iran-Contra and had his best moments after the scandal, including, he specified, his "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" speech at the Brandenburg Gate. This is garbage, if only because President Reagan gave that speech on June 12, 1987. The Congressional report on Iran-Contra was issued on November 18, 1987.
RUSSERT AND COBURN. On Meet the Press, host Tim Russert declared that his guest, Senator Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) could not accept a judicial nominee who had pledged to uphold Roe v. Wade. Coburn countered that this was not correct, and that he had said as much in his campaign. Coburn said that "overturning Roe v. Wade is not going to change" the law regarding abortion in our country; rather, he said, it would "just return it to the States." We have to change hearts, he said.
Russert asked if Coburn believed that American families were falling apart because of gays. "No," Coburn answered, "but that's a symptom of it." He talked about the fundamental structure of the family and challenges to it. But Coburn admitted that he could vote for a judicial nominees with different views than his on this issue.
Russert next asked Coburn if he thought Congress had a right to restrict the purchase of "machine guns." Coburn thinks so, but he thinks that judges do not. Russert averred that this put him in conflict with Judge Alito and said that the judge's views were not those of a strict-constructionist. Coburn commented: "I'm not sure that's what he is yet."
Russert played clips of Coburn at the Roberts confirmation hearings declaring that he trusted Roberts because, as a physician, he could see from the judge's body language that he was being truthful. Russert asked: "Do you believe that as a physician, you can tell if a person is telling the truth?" It sounded as if Tim were asking him about the little green men in the cracks in the walls, but Coburn said that anyone can be trained to see it.
Russert asked Coburn if the "American people" will hear from the Senate Intelligence Committee about the questions surrounding pre-war intelligence. Coburn: "I think they will, but they aren't going to hear anything new." Coburn does not sit on the Intelligence Committee but noted that it is not a good thing, "to create a problem for political gain."
WALLACE AND WALLACE. On FOX News Sunday, host Chris Wallace interviewed his dad. Mike Wallace "thinks It's damn foolishness," this talk of a liberal agenda in the media. Of journalists, Mike Wallace said: "They're patriots, just as much as any conservative." He caught himself and added the term "journalists," attempting to turn "conservative" into a modifier, but it seems he thinks of "conservatives" and "journalists" to be two different groups. (I don't know that he thinks they are mutually exclusive.)
Mike Wallace thinks when Dan Rather's team was caught with the poorly researched memos regarding the President's National Guard service, the anchor should have been fired with the team. He discussed this in a bathroom with Rather, he acknowledged, but there was not fisticuff.
Mike Wallace is old school, from a time when reporters were reporters first, not trained to disseminate opinion.
This was an interesting interview. How does one "interrogate" one's father? Mike wasn't nervous, but I could sense a little natural deference on Chris's part. (I'm being Tom Coburn.)
HATCH AND DURBIN ON FTN. On CBS, Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer opened the show with talk of "Republicans in trouble." He posited to Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) that this White House is in more serious trouble than any he can remember, Republican or Democrat. (LBJ was forced out of his reelection bid, Nixon resigned, and Clinton was impeached. Schieffer, whom I will not denote with his initials, has an odd perspective.) Hatch replied that every President has trouble in his second term, and that President Bush should "keep plugging away" with what he is doing.
Schieffer declared that Carter and Reagan "cleaned house" in their second terms. Hatch answered that Andy Card was still "enthusiastic" and that Karl Rove had not been indicted for anything.
Durbin of Illinois, the famed nazi hunter of recent note, declared that this Administration had three main problems. Citing NYT columnist Maureen Dowd, Durbin said that one problem was "competency." Citing Press Secretary Scott McClellan's insistence a few years ago that no one in the White House had anything to do with Valerie Plame, Durbin said that another problem was "trust." A third, he added, was "values," alleging that the Administration does not care about "improving the lives" of Americans.
Jan Greenburg of the ChiTrib asked Durbin about the recent closed Senate Session, and the Senator said that they had to do it, as the Intelligence Committee had not done anything for twenty months. She asked why. Durbin responded: "Because I think it's painful" to disclose "any possible abuse of power by this Administration." With a smirk, he was careful and certain to verbally underscore the word "possible," as if intimating that he knew something would come out which would harm the Administration. [NOTE: I'm Coburn-like.]
Hatch scoffed: "It certainly was a political stunt," and he chastised the Dems for seeking to "politicize the Select Committee on Intelligence."
Schieffer interjected that regardless of this or that, it was obvious that there was a deep partisan divide on Capitol Hill. Hatch declared that it was the wrong thing to do, and Durbin complained that "this Bush nominee" should be asked "if he'll follow the conservatism of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor."
Asked about McCain's torture bill, Hatch sided with the Vice President. Durbin sided with John McCain and praised McCain's floor speech about being tortured in Vietnam. He accused some Senators of supporting torture.
ROBERTS ON FTN. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kansas) was allowed to explain his opposition to McCain's bill without Jay Rockefeller or any opponent interrupting. (He was one of the nine Senators to vote against it.) He said that no one supports torture or "cruel and inhuman treatment," so Durbin's comments were "not relevant."
He explained that putting the regs against torture in writing would be "the first chapter of the al Qaeda handbook," removing their "fear of the unknown" – i.e., that they might be tortured.
Schieffer asked Roberts about the Intelligence Committee report on pre-war intelligence, and he replied that they were scheduled to issue a progress report next week, so the Dems had no reason to go into closed session. The committee has several working drafts, he said.
Asked why it is taking so long, he explained that the Democrats had given them 350 names and he also had "over 100" names of Senators who had spoken about Saddam's destructive capability.
He said that every report which had been issued about the intelligence leading up to the war had concluded that it was flawed and that there was no "manipulation" of this flawed intelligence.
JOHN REID ON LE. On CNN, Late Edition host Wolf Blitzer spoke with British Defense Secretary John Reid, in the U.S. for meetings with Rumsfeld, Rice, and others. Blitzer opened by reading from a Newsweek report about a group of London terrorists who had been plotting to blow up New York, Washington, etc. Reid explained an "ideological struggle" between the 21st Century and the 7th. He praised the international community's solidarity against this enemy.
Wolf asked him again how credible was the intelligence that the terrorists wanted to blow up targets in the US. Reid explained that he doesn't comment on "specific reports which appear in newspapers." Wolf asked again. Reid explained that, "I'm not trying to be unhelpful to you, Wolf, but…"
He's certain that they've thwarted several "attempts" in London.
Blitzer asked about THE SIXTEEN WORDS™. They are, Wolf said, "back in the headlines" after Scooter's indictment. He played the sixteen words, the President's allegation that British intelligence had reported that Iraq had tried to purchase Uranium from an African nation, and asked if the President were lying. Reid said that it was true when the President said it, and he went on to point out that the entire world knew that Saddam was a threat.
Blitzer declared the intelligence faulty and asked if the doc on which the SIXTEEN WORDS™ were based was a forgery. Reid said that all the information had been believed to be true and was consistent with what the world knew about Saddam.
Wolf wanted to concentrate on the "enriched Uranium from Niger to Iraq." He mentioned the Butler Report, which had found that the British intelligence report and the President's SIXTEEN WORDS™ were "well-founded." He asked if this were still the case. Reid said that it was. Wolf pointed out that the CIA has admitted that the SIXTEEN WORDS™ should not have been included in the President's speech (something not relevant).
Wolf brought up the DOWNING STREET MEMO™ and alleged that the British Government had been told that the President was making stuff up. Reid said that this was just one of thousands of memos, and that the whole world thought that Saddam was not complying with UNSC Resolution 1441. "There was no question about the degree of guilt."
Observation: Reid is better at making this case than even Tony Blair.
Blitzer asked how the Brits could continue to deal with Iran after the remarks by its President about wiping Israel off the map. Reid discussed the reality of the problems which would be exacerbated by ignoring the threat.
GILLESPIE AND MCAULIFFE ON LE. Blitzer next spoke to former RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie and former DNC Chair Terence McAuliffe. He read the President's poll numbers, declared them awful, and turned the floor over to Gillespie. Ed thinks they will be up. Wolf asked Gillespie if he could replace Karl Rove, as some have suggested. Gillespie thinks that Rove is going a good job and its important to focus on the agenda.
Blitzer complained that the Democrats have not been able to capitalize on the President's problem. Terence suggested "progress this Thursday," with Dems taking the governorships of New Jersey and Virginia. He complained about the "credibility gap" and "lying about intelligence" to send people to war. What Karl Rove did, Terence said, was "shameless," and he ought to be fired. It would have been okay to go after Joe Wilson, he averred, but not Valerie Plame.
Gillespie remind that neither Karl Rove nor Scooter Libby had been accused of leaking Plame's name. Wolf referred to her as "Valerie Plame Wilson" then as "Valerie Wilson."
Terence accused the White House of doing to Valerie Plame "what they did to John McCain, what they did to Max Cleland."
Gillespie pointed out that the Dems don't want to talk about policies and issues. Terence clapped, smiled, and said that he would "love to talk about George Bush's policies and issues!"
Wolf asked Gillespie if a pardon should be taken off the table. Gillespie called the question silly and "so Washington."
After a commercial break and some policy banter, Blitzer declared that Jerry Kilgore does not want the President to campaign for him in Virginia as Bush is reviled. Gillespie laughed that the President will be there on Monday. He predicted a Kilgore victory. Terence guessed that Tim Kaine will supremely triumph.
STEPH TALKS TO BIDEN AND HAGEL. Two extremely familiar Sunday morning faces – Senators Joe Biden (D-Delaware) and Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska) – were on Steph's This Week show on ABC.
Steph said that Judge Alito was "very well qualified." Biden asked him to define "well qualified." Steph listed the qualifications and asked if the Dems could filibuster on judicial philosophy alone. Biden said yes, adding that the Harriet Miers nomination proved the lie of the Right.
Hagel agreed that they could filibuster on ideology but noted that Alito was very well qualified, and unless "something comes out of nowhere," he "will vote for him enthusiastically."
Hagel agreed that the President had lost all credibility but could get it back "by governing." He criticized the President for opposing McCain's torture amendment. He said that the President has to be "direct" and "honest" and "competent." (Almost using Durbin's talking points.) He wants the President to "put some deep perspective on who's around him at the White House."
Joe Biden would not comment on Rove resigning: "That's above my pay grade." He said that the President lacks credibility and should formulate a path out of Iraq. The President should "keep to his word" and fire anyone who had anything to do with the leak. He suggested that the President force the oil company to donate their profits to the poor.
Hagel cited Chuck Grassley as supporting a windfall profit tax on oil, but he himself backed away from "the federal government mandating it." He thinks the oil companies should do this voluntarily.
Biden clarified that he wasn't proposing federal action; rather, "Presidential action," which he referred to as "jawboning."
Biden said that Reid was right to close the Senate and he got his results, as the Senate Intelligence Committee was going to release their report.
Hagel said that he was one of the authors of Phase II of that report, the part of the report over which Reid closed a Senate session. This means that, as Chairman Roberts had indicated, work is being done apace and their was no call for the recent Democrat stunt.
Steph talked about the WashPost story about the FBI harassing citizens with the Patriot Act. Hagel is "very concerned about this," about "centralizing power," about "eroding individual rights." He talked about protecting our liberties, but he did not officially declare his candidacy.
Biden said that he's concerned as well. They gave the President the power, but the FBI is now abusing it, just as Ken Starr abused the grand jury power a few years ago. No one should be compelled to respond to the FBI's letters.
Biden explained his American Flag lapel pin, and how that is a problem with "some Democrats." The flag, patriotism, is the "real deal."
Hagel joked that he should get Biden to be his Vice Presidential candidate, but that this would ruin things for both of them. Considering that Biden is Hagel's foreign policy mentor, perhaps they'd want to do it the other way.
In the chat, Chuck Hagel did identify himself as a "conservative Republican," which is a good sign for him. When they reject the appellation, it is a sign of political indigestion. Have at it!
~~~~
« Question and answer time: the Wes Clark thing. — Comments (50) | President's Weekly Radio Address (and Dem response) — Comments (3) »
The Sunday Morning Talk Shows (Review) 51 Comments (0 topical, 51 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
It's always the same players, at least this time COburn was there to break up the monotony.
"Terence suggested "progress this Thursday," with Dems taking the governorships of New Jersey and Virginia."
How can this be a gain for the dems given that both governorships are currently in the hands of the dems? Even if Corzine and Kaine do win, how is this an example of dems taking advantage of Republican problems?
errrr... doesn't the Constitution say something about elections being help on Tuesdays?? Just a thought
Did the Drunken Murderer have one of those nice MTP coffee mugs in front of him, and if he did, did the Drunken Murderer look at it longingly, or nervously?
Please, whenever the Drunken Murderer is on the SundayTalkingHeadsPalooza Tour, report whether he has the shakes or a drink in front of him to help calm him down but start his slurring and misspeaks. That is basically all we (I) want to hear about the Drunken Murderer. His views are useless, his Politics are comical, and his legacy is Shit. What a pathetic waste.
and even stealthy unless he is really that ignorant about the law. Plus, I figured out why he was on when he let lib Tim lying about libby Russert lead him to denounce the gop to the point of suggesting the gop doesn't deserve votes due to spending. He recovered later, but watch for the sound bites in dem commercials.
He votes right and is a good leader in the cloakroom, but
in objecting to a filibuster with the Gang of 14: Graham and DeWine beat him there. If he were going to try to take the spotlight by throwing his weight around as "the leader" of the Gang, he just blew that by declaring now. For drama, for impact, he would have waited, seeming to decide at the last minute.
That's not his game. McCain knows that something like this, while it seems important to folks with our interests now, won't mean a whit to most Republican voters in 2008.
I think the most interesting thing for 2008 on this week's shows was Hagel aligning himself with Joe Biden. Yikes! (Joe Biden is Hagel's foreign policy mentor, it has seemed, but he shouldn't be so obvious about it.)
like an upset.
Even sober he was an incomprehensible liar.
I always thought it was just when he was loaded stoned or drunk.
On television to talk, they should just call up Parker Blackman from Fenton Communications. and let the Senator play golf or something. For something that wasn't a political stunt, it sure wound up a blogad on Talking Points Memo and DKos for the NPC awfully fast. And no, NPC ain't the National Panhellenic Conference.
And when Russert asked Coburn about his human polygraphic mad skillz, I really, really thought that he was going to take the next step and ask him about what Scooter Libby has said on camera so far...but I think somewhere in the back of his mind he realized that since he's probably going to be a prosecution witness he'd better not shove pointy sticks around...
the way of a good story.
In addition to screwing up the details of Reagan's speech this week, last week, when Judge Sam Alito was named, Schumer pointed out that when Clinton was president, Clinton worked out a compromise with Republicans, who were then in the majority. Chuck used this to prove that Bush was somehow "required" to get the Democrats' "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval" before nominating a candidate for the Supreme Court.
Except that Chuck was wrong! Republicans were in the minority when Clinton made both of his picks. And that really matters. It is safe to say that Republicans might have demanded a more moderate justice than Ginsburg and Breyer if they had been in the majority.
Schumer is wrong so often, I'm disappointed that he won't be the Dem's nominee for president. It would be so interesting to watch that guy step all over himself for 8 entertainment-filled months.
that many dems in that area hassled him about his decision to wear an American flag pin on his lapel.
The dems are shooting themselves in the foot by trying to distance themselves from old fashioned patriotism. It's funny to see how they are rebuffing Biden as "too conservative" simply because he puts protecting Americans through military strength ahead of the peace, love, 'n' hugs gospel of the 60's.
...about gay people so continually pass unremarked upon by people here and the other GOP sites I read?
"Schieffer declared that Carter and Reagan "cleaned house" in their second terms."
Is shieffer so addled that he thinks carter won a second term, or was this just a typo?
Thanks for watching so we don't have to.
Who ran the "should we relax the profanity rule?" diary and poll here a while ago, I think I should respond here. There are plenty of us who don't agree with the big windbag, but the profanity regulations are still in effect and the poll showed that the vast majority of RedStaters support that policy vigorously. This wasn't even creative.
This is only my 2nd time to read one, and I'm already starting to look forward to it.
For someone who does not get to watch the Sunday News Shows, this is a great find!
not an immutable characteristic such as gender or race.
Had Coburn been asked about heterosexual fornication, adultery, Im sure he would have denounced that conduct as harmful to the family as well.
You know, adulterous conduct by a spouse is punished in property distribution, alimony entitlement and child custody matters very often.
Adultery is still a crime in some states, as sodomy was before the oligarchs issued their edict.
Don't presume to equate sodomy with MLK please sir.
and where are the adultery/fornication pride parades?
"The highlight of this week, though certainly not for the purposes of this review, was probably Chris Wallace's interview with his dad. That dynamic is endearing."
What? This was pure garbage. Oprah and Dr Phil would have loved it. I know have less respect fo both Chris and Mike Wallace. Not that I had a lot befoer this.
Also gives a good idea af where Kilmer comes from.
let me object to The Swimmer being referred to as a murderer. No state in the US has ever imposed a duty to rescue, the failure of which to perform, that could result in a murder charge.
And absent any evidence of intent, especially against a driver-swimmer, it is slander to use that term about Edward.
I said that the Wallace-Wallace interview was the highlight as a comment on Dick Durbin/Ted Kennedy/Joe Biden. Read my comments on that interview, what I reported for the purposes of this review.
That being said, there was a genuine dynamic to that interview which, to a jaded longtime view of these Sunday shows like me, was almost startling. So much of this is pure artifice.
harms the family the most can be addressed? I dont play the which is worse game. I can walk and chew gum.
Which causes more death, murder or manslaughter?
get it
Which causes more death, murder or manslaughter?
It's the same result, a dead person.
Gays and adultery are 2 totally different things.
If you woke up this moring as an elected official, surely you would address the adultery first, right?
I'm not saying TC is wrong, but it seeems to me he is totally out of touch when he says gays are what is destroying families the most.
...hope you have a son or daughter how says he or she is gay. Then and only then will you be forced to look at yourself and your life and then answer: "What the heck was I thinking".
Or you will be like other homophobes and pretend it that it's ok when it's me or my family, but outside it's the DEVIL!
the liberal response to dissention is to label it. To disagree with the homosexual lifestyle is not homophobia. There is no fear involved at all, in fact. Nor, despite what our Leftist friends would have us believe, is there hate involved.
I don't believe homosexuality is anything more than a 'lifestyle' choice, and there is no convincing scientific evidence (in spite of how very bad the liberals want it) to suggest it is anything remotely natural.
This does not mean I hate gays. It simply means I think they're wrong. I think a lot of people are wrong. In fact, on one thing or another, I probably think everyone's wrong. But I neither hate nor fear them.
not "destroy"
you wrote:
Which destroys more families? By: OregonCoast
Adultery?
or gays?
remember now?
so, which shall we outlaw, murder or manslaughter?
I have children that were born "oriented" to commit all kinds of sinful conduct
But I raise them to refrain from same anyway.
adultery is addressed NEGATIVELY against adulterers in state family law statutes
But, if adulterers suddenly got PROUD of their conduct and lobbied for special rights, I would oppoose them.
again, copburn didn'00t say MOST
as if
do libs lie or are they just partially deaf
which is the most
...believe there has to be scientific evidence? Are you saying you believe in only scientific evidence? That's it. Nothing more.
I would hate to live in your small minded head.
Oh, by the way what is your position on evaluation? There has to be science involved as you so pointed out.
Or is that only when it suites you?
to drink excessively, abuse children, sleep with any and all members of the opposite sex even when married or kill innocents in mass murder.
All of us are born into sin.
I have many gay friends, have represented them in court and took care of a dying gay man with aids.
They sinned. i love them. I've sinned. But Im not proud of it and dont lobby for laws to congratulate me for it.
Used to, gays just wanted to be left alone. Now they want us to celebrate their bedroom activities.
no
respect your opinion. However when you have seen what I have seen it makes these gay bashers repulsive.
My friend for 30 years was gay, I am 51 years old, were out at a straight bar until all heck breaks loose. He gets beaten up so badly, at the hospital they could not get any internal blood; due to the fact most of his veins were popped. He died 71 1/2 hours later. Having never woke up. The only thing that gets me through it is that the doctor said that once his brain was smashed he did not feel anything anymore.
I know it's kind of a downer, but I hope people will think more about their actions and not just what I want.
Thanks for letting me share that.
But, if adulterers suddenly got PROUD of their conduct and lobbied for special rights, I would oppoose them.
You mean you don't oppose them now?
Only if they lobbied?
So gays you don't have a problem with, just as long as they pipe down?
Face it, adultery destroys a family 99% of the time, gay parades? not so much.
can you read?
I said, if adulerers lobbied to CHANGE the law I would OPPOSE them just as I do gays
I understand. Its tough for me. I have MANY gay friends. Im near Decatur, GA!!! I dont bash. But, I don't endorse. I love them. and you
because the left try so hard to claim there is some. And yes... I do think there should be scientific evidence to support claims of a scientific nature (i.e. "we're born that way"). Is that so unreasonable?
Again, there is no hate here... nor is there any fear. Sin is sin. I feel the same way about adultery as I do about homosexuality... It's just that most adulterers aren't trying to legitimize their life-style and force the public at large to accept it.
Not sure what you meant about "evaluation."
Or read what you wrote?
What you meant:
"if adulerers lobbied to CHANGE the law I would OPPOSE them just as I do gays"
What you wrote:
"if adulterers suddenly got PROUD of their conduct and lobbied for special rights, I would oppoose them."
So let me summarize
You oppose gays because they are too proud and lobby too much. And because they are not looked in a negative light in family law. You don't oppose adultery as much because adultery is looked as a negative in family law already.
I say we as a society work harder toward abolishing the 6 things that God hates, than what God refers to as sins.
In our minds, some sins may be worse than others, but God does not appear to make distinction. All sin is rebellion against God. He does not ask us to refrain from the top 6, or top 10, or top 1. He says, "Go and sin no more."
No more. None. Nothing. Quit. No gossiping, no gluttony, no lying, no cheating, no adultery, no fornication, no slothfulness, no sodomy, no murder, no child abuse, no blasphemy...none of it. Ever.
That is what society should work toward.
Mildred, Mildred, dear. We try not to antagonize one another on this site. I recommend that you wait to post when you are a little less angry. This will help you post a little more clearly.
Otherwise, you might ask someone what their position is on "evaluation" and that would be a little silly. I personally hated evaluations enough that I decided I would rather be self-employed. There was no science involved. It basically came down to a gut decision.
I still wear a suit to work, but I don't work in a suite. Overall it's nice.
I don't believe Biden is telling the truth about that.
Nobody at a democrat rally is going to attack a democrat senator for wearing a flag lapel. They'll say something like 'That's our flag and we need to take it back from ChimpyMcBushitler and Halliburton.'
Biden has a long, long history of making stuff up to fit the moment and this is just another example of his mendacity.
If he were to tell me the sky was blue today I'd have to leave the building and go outside to look for fear that it had turned green.
I get so confused, but I'm not a lawyer.
Calling Ted 'Swim Coach' Kennedy a murderer to his face would be slander.
Putting it in print would be libel.
What does the Internet or blogs most closely resemble?
Could we just tone it down and call him an embarrassment? That way you can't really disprove it so there'd be no legal action at all...
A bunch of "god says gays are doing something wrong" and that fatuous, focus-group tested, "hate the sin/not the sinner" line.
Not one person stood up for gay rights, not even the non-religious conservatives of a libertarian bent or even -- one would think this site has them -- Log Cabin Republicans.
It's a shame that gay-friendly conservatives feel uncomfortable and unsafe standing up for gay rights in this party, and I mean "shame" advisedly.
pride in the immoral conduct is decadent
But i don't want laws against pride
pride motivates those that want to change the laws that exist NOW
I favor current law
I favored the same laws when gays were in the closet and not proud
But, NO MATTER WHAT THE MOTIVATING REASON, I'm against changing the laws as they exist
I'm sure that most gays are, in fact not really proud, they just feign it
And if adulterers who also aren't proud try to change the law to have adultery viewed as an equal and acceptable "lifestyle"
I'll oppose them
immoral conduct should be treated as such in the law
either as being illegal or
punished as civilly as a negative factor
OR SIMPLY NOT ADDRESSED AT ALL, BUT IN ANY EVENT SHOULD NEVER BE AFFIRMED AS A POSITIVE GOOD!!
rome fell
I don't want any put in jail for their conduct.
I would defend their free speech to advocate changes in the law. And, as a lawyer, I have helped draft INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS laws that would acheive the results they desire in many areas of law, without reference to "orientation." And I have reprsented gays in court when they have had rights that we all share violated.
But to be freindly does not require endorsment of particular conduct. In fact true love does need mislead one to ignore sin and its dire consequences.
I took care of one of my best friends as he dies of aids. We both knew that his non-marital gay conduct and my non-marital straight conduct was wrong.
I have many gay friends and work with many gays. i love gay people.
You don't think gay people should have sex. That's the weirdest "love" I ever heard of.
I was wondering the same thing!
My memory of the 1980 election was that Carter's first term was such a disaster, the voters had had enough!!!
But if Carter really wants to clean house in his "second term", why doesn't he go chase the mullahs out of Iran that he invited in during his first term?
Maybe it was just the feeling that Carter's 4 years felt like they lasted 8 years and Schieffer just forgot...
I only hope that you have a son or daughter that grows up and says that they are a conservative. Would you then have the same kind of compassion that you say we lack?
unmarried people should have sex either. And love my children so much that I have taught them that they should wait until marriage to engage in same.
I don't tell them that I failed in that regard.
But I also don't go around seeking out gays or straights to denounce their sin. I go to church to hear the word of god that includes denunciations of sin and I seek forgiveness for mine.
But when someone publicly lobbies to turn our law on its ear by having sodomy between same sex couples equated with married couples and to obtain "rights" based on who they DECLARE they wish to have sex with, well then....
don't have sex with. Our children, our parents, our best friends...
...you're not so obtuse that you can see that denying lovers the pleasures, rights and joys of sex is not the same thing as loving a child or a brother.
bridges to the white house to help him along in his 2008 bid for the presidency.
McCain I think is good on the judges, and I suspect he is going to step in and lead the gang of 14 in, so that a dem fillibuster doesn't succeed.