TlalocW
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-08-04 09:20 PM
Original message |
| YAY! BUSH ISN'T BRINGING BACK SLAVERY! |
|
Edited on Fri Oct-08-04 09:24 PM by TlalocW
HE DISAGREED WITH THE DRED SCOTT CASE! HE'S GOT MY VOTE!
TlalocW
|
| RoyGBiv
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-08-04 09:22 PM
Response to Original message |
| 1. That was just plain dumb ... |
|
Edited on Fri Oct-08-04 09:23 PM by RoyGBiv
He didn't even get the substance of the case right.
And the disgusting irony is that Taney, who wrote one of the opinions in Dred Scott, WAS a strict constructionist.
|
| Bjornsdotter
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-08-04 09:23 PM
Response to Original message |
| 2. My son and I are still laughing about this n/t |
| InhaleToTheChief
(189 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-08-04 09:24 PM
Response to Original message |
|
He just said he wouldn't appoint a SC Justice who was pro-slavery.
What a guy!
|
| Dark Jedi
(141 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-08-04 09:37 PM
Response to Original message |
|
A little behind the times there, Bushie
|
| Alenne
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-08-04 09:51 PM
Response to Original message |
| 5. Bush is going after the black vote |
|
I may have to look at the candidates again. Kerry didn't clarify how he feels about bringing back slavery.
|
| ogsball
(282 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-08-04 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
| 7. I was wondering where that one came from nt |
| reggaehead
(63 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-08-04 10:24 PM
Response to Original message |
|
He said he was opposed to slavery. But as we all know he hasn't delivered on a single campign promise from the last election.
|
| skygazer
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-08-04 10:27 PM
Response to Original message |
| 8. He also said that decision was a matter of opinion |
|
That it was under the property rights section of the constitution and that it wasn't specifically written.
He was wrong.
The original constitution specifically defined slaves and gave them a value of 1/3 of a human being in order to determine population figures for voting and Representative numbers.
He doesn't even know what the Constitution said. How the hell can we trust him to uphold it if he doesn't even know what it says?
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts)     |
Thu Apr 25th 2024, 05:25 AM
Response to Original message |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
