October 09, 2004

19th Century SCOTUS sighting

If you, like me, are wondering what the hell the Dred Scott decision had to do with anything in the debate Friday night, here's a theory. It did seem to be such a non sequitur that the possibility that it's actually code for Roe v. Wade isn't as outlandish as it might appear.

Update: It's not outlandish at all. Do a Google search for "Dred Scott" abortion and see what you turn up.

Posted by Linkmeister at October 9, 2004 09:14 PM

why that little slimy dog Bush...
Once again you wowed me, Linky!!!
I can't wait to discuss this tomorrow with my politically minded friends..

Posted by: toxiclabrat at October 10, 2004 04:34 PM

Slimy little dog? You see, I would contend that the "slimy dog" is the guy that's shoving the ice pick through the infant's skull or disolving it's flesh with salt and then sucking it through a grinder. Of course; that's just me.

It is even more difficult for me to fathom how so many individuals have the gumption to phrase such crimes against humanity as "womens' rights." You see, not many people alive these days recall just what exactly the Womens' rights movement was all about. Was I alive to remember? No. But I can tell you without pause, it had absolutely nothing to do with the genocide of generations upon generations of helpless souls.

Now excuse me while I go vomit my insides out of myself.

Posted by: Josh at October 11, 2004 02:41 AM

Josh, I think both my posting and my commenter's judgment have to do with his tactic. He knew if he said he'd pick justices who'd overturn Roe he'd lose the middle, so he said the same thing in an obscure way that only those who understand the code would understand.

Yet he's the guy who's running on being a straight talker.

Posted by: Linkmeister at October 11, 2004 08:24 AM

Links, I understand the point your trying to make, and I even agree with it.

I also understand that as often as I read your blog, my comments (when I do make them) generally go directly against the point or idea that you or another commenter are trying to make. I don't mean to be inflammatory - that's not my intention at all. I just get really stoked about some things and when I do, given a forum to share my mind (which I'm grateful that you provide), I can be very candid about what I believe. There is no subject in existence that stirs my emotions more than abortion. While I will not make apologies for any of this, I will apologize for coming off in a flippant manner, both to you and ToxicLabRat.

I think what it boils down to, is that regardless of tactic or action I will support anything - ANYTHING - that serves to end the 'abortion' of infants. War, blood and violence would not detour me from that cause and I would gratefully and proudly engage in any of that to end 'abortion.' That goes to say that it makes no difference to me whether or not Bush was trying to be slick or slimy in what he said because he was speaking out against 'abortion.' If John Kerry (as much distaste as I have for the man) promised to try to put a stop once and for all to the 'abortion' of infants I would vote for him without pause because that would be more than President Bush has done during his tenure.

In any case, I have a lot of thoughts about all of this, though this is not the appropriate forum for them. However; I do enjoy your posts and your readers' comments. Thanks for the opportunity.

Posted by: Josh at October 11, 2004 06:44 PM

I appreciate the candor. Why not express your thoughts in a blog of your own? I'm not suggesting you stop doing so here, but a comment box provides a pretty small area in which to expound. Certainly Blogger makes it easy enough to do.

Posted by: Linkmeister at October 11, 2004 08:47 PM