<p>They can also interpret the consitution to say, hey we can’t regulate industry when it comes to pollution and safety…</p>
<p>And anyone that complains about paying taxes, get off my road…</p>
<p><a href=“http://nytimes.com/2005/07/27/politics/politicsspecial1/27records.html?ei=5094&en=fc843157b76024c3&hp=&ex=1122436800&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print[/url]”>http://nytimes.com/2005/07/27/politics/politicsspecial1/27records.html?ei=5094&en=fc843157b76024c3&hp=&ex=1122436800&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print</a></p>
<p>interesting</p>
<p>Yeah I was hoping for a little diversity too… haha did any of you guys see the DailyShow episode when they were making fun of him?
“If Roberts came in a box, it would be labeled " 1 White Guy”
But I mean, white guy, captain of the football team, elite family, etc, etc.</p>
<p>
Linking a character value to a political stance is bogus. There are incredibly kindly people on both sides of the “line”, from the 90-year-old women in soup kitchens to the young actors giving laundry money to someone they don’t even know. Please reconsider before posting another round condemnation of half the country; both conservatives and liberals are here to stay in politics, and so respect and understanding are important.</p>
<p>
This is one of the most dangerous arguments, and the most offensive, of all time (I don’t mean yours in particular, I mean this type). When you suggest someone has been brainwashed into their opinions, you refuse to acknowledge that they have the brain capacity and independence to form their own opinions, and so you deny them respect. In your own way, by portraying conservative women as blind acceptors of what they are told, you deny them of as much humanity as you accuse men of doing. Don’t condemn a group just because they hold a position you find untenable, nor assume that they have been brainwashed into it.</p>
<p>
They do, it’s true. Both conservative and liberal media figures, talk show hosts, etc., have taken super-polarized stances as a way of improving their ratings by controversy. But I would ask anyone reading this not to judge either “side” by their pundits, as many on both sides could stand for their particular political group to be a little less closely associated with said pundits. Believe me, these people represent few opinions on either side of the political spectrum.</p>
<p>
“1776” is a good movie in which to see the same thing happening with the Declaration of Independence.</p>
<p>
Actually, several studies (I can’t remember if they were official or not, but I’ll try to find them) have found that women in high-ranking business positions are more likely to exhibit some character traits typically associated with men. It’s believed that these traits, such as ruthlessness, are necessary to get to and survive at the top, no matter of gender. Ergo, most women at the top would (according to this theory) display the same character traits you condemn in men.</p>
<p>To link a character value to a political one is NOT bogus…it can show hypocracy</p>
<p>
Perhaps I should rephrase my statement. Making generalizations about the personalities of a vast group of people, based on their political stance, is bogus.</p>
<p>I likehow his records are private, but mine aren’t. And I thought he worked for US as an attorney. Guess not</p>
<p>But when liberals are called hysterical, well, I must comment. [citygirlsmom]</p>
<p>To call a whole group of people hysterical shows a bias, as well trying to insult. [citygirlsmom]</p>
<p>[even so:]</p>
<p>A little hysteria is good. [citygirlsmom]</p>
<p> nonetheless:</p>
<p>that is why I dislike it very much when names are called, when people are lumped into a group [citygirlsmom]</p>
<p>[but then, the nature of groups is, in this sense, a very restrictive one:]</p>
<p>Lauras50:
conservatives are MEAN.</p>
<p> .and the rest is silence;)</p>
<p>Still, for the record, what I actually wrote in my off-hand coment was, it seems to me that TOO OFTEN those who self-identify as liberals COME ACROSS as hysterical. Notas in the spirit of the conservative appraisal posted aboveliberals ARE hysterical, or “conservatives are mean”. </p>
<p>To link a character value to a political one is NOT bogus…it can show hypocracy [citygirlsmom]</p>
<p>To call someone a liberal, to the best of my knowledge, is to make reference to them for their political values.</p>
<p>For instance, hypocrisy, or hysteria; conjoined they make a such a charming couple;)</p>
<p>Anyone have any thoughts on NARAL pulling their ad re: Mr. Roberts? Why would they do that? Why would they back down? If the commercial was correct and accurate in the first place, why would they decide to not run it anymore?</p>
<p>Just conjecture but here are a few things:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Perhaps they see which way the nomination is going and do not want to spend good money on a fight they can not win. Save your money for a different fight. Perhaps another up coming nomination.</p></li>
<li><p>Perhaps they are waiting for the hearings to begin before the big push.</p></li>
<li><p>Perhaps the ads are just plain wrong.</p></li>
<li><p>Perhaps they receognize that the american public want a fair hearing without all the pressure groups from one side or the other spouting off. Maybe they recall the Ginsburg nomination and now that the shoe is on the other foot need to act accordingly.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>I’m very far left politically and have given money to NARAL in the past. I will not do so in the future. The tactics with that ad also cause me to doubt every other thing I have heard from NARAL reps - or closely affiliated groups - concernning Roberts. </p>
<p>So basically I think NARAL has hurt its cause tremendously, undermining its own credibility as well as hurting other allied groups. </p>
<p>I’m willing to tolerate a little bit of exaggeration in issue advertising - it is hard to get the point across in a 30 second spot without coming on strong - but this was just over-the-top. </p>
<p>I think that John Roberts obviously is very conservative, but my feeling is that if NARAL or other left-leaning organizations can’t find reasons to object to his appointment without making false or conflated allegations, then they must not have much to go on beside his conservative viewpoint. </p>
<p>Personally, I’m on the fence on this one, given my feeling that Bush is going to appoint a right-wing justice no matter what – I just think that if Roberts is blocked, the next Bush choice could be much worse. I mean, if Bush thinks John Bolton is the right choice for the UN, no telling who he has in mind when Rehnquist finally goes. It’s the old adage of being careful what you wish for; George W. Bush is not going to appoint an openly pro-choice candidate no matter what. I’m personally more concerned about Roberts’ likely decisions on environmental issues and civil rights… but again, I have a sense that Roberts is likely the least-objectionable name that Bush will come up with.</p>
<p>Calmom, I’m impressed with your stance. Do you think Barbara Boxer hurt herself politically by alligning herself so closely with the NARAL ad?</p>
<p>Hey parents are you all going to tune in to Justice Sunday 2??? you know a supreme court justice’s term is forever…</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.frc.org/[/url]”>http://www.frc.org/</a></p>
<p>I think that Barbara Boxer probably gets a lot of funding & support from her strong pro-choice stance. During the last election, she was running with virtually no opposition – the Republican running against her essentially dropped from sight during the race --and the only ads I saw running in local media were very strong concerning her pro-choice position. I thought that was a little odd in terms of political strategy – if you don’t need to advertise at all, and put your money into only a single issue, why the hot-button abortion issue? </p>
<p>So no, I don’t think she hurts herself by taking that position - but that is because she is playing to her constituency, and she’s got plenty of time before she has to run for office again - no one is going to remember the NARAL ad in 2010, thought they might remember that Boxer tried unsuccessfully to block the Roberts nomination, and its a pretty sure bet that by 2010 Roberts will have authored some opinions that are sure to provoke the wrath of the left.</p>