New NARAL Ad

[BillyBob]

We all know that the new NARAL ad being played on CNN is chock full of lies about Robertson. It is typical of the demo-commies to invent lies, forge documents and continually practice the politics of personal destruction. No news there, it's the same old same old from the wacky lefties.

Here (http://mfile.akamai.com/5020/wma/rushlimb.download.akamai.com/5020/clips/05/08/081005_6_naral_ad_parody.asx) is thier latest offering.

:chuckle:

[Aizvarya]

That was the most sensational and ridiculous thing I have ever heard in many years. It's hard to believe what I just listened to wasn't a parody inand of itself, that is ridiculous.

[BillyBob]

Have you heard the actual NARAL ad? Much more ridiculous than Rush's parody.

[CRASH]

We all know that the new NARAL ad being played on CNN is chock full of lies about Robertson. It is typical of the demo-commies to invent lies, forge documents and continually practice the politics of personal destruction. No news there, it's the same old same old from the wacky lefties.

Here (http://mfile.akamai.com/5020/wma/rushlimb.download.akamai.com/5020/clips/05/08/081005_6_naral_ad_parody.asx) is thier latest offering.

:chuckle:

That is a good link! Cracked me up!

However, this guy is another legal positivist- defending Homos pro bono? Yuk.

http://kgov.com/docs/RobertsPressRelease.html

[BillyBob]

Here is a link to factcheck.org which exposes NARAL. for the liars that we all know they are.

http://factcheck.org/article340.html

[Aizvarya]

Have you heard the actual NARAL ad? Much more ridiculous than Rush's parody.

Was that a parody? I couldn't tell by the context of the original post. If it wasn't, consider me a bit stunned.

[BillyBob]

That is a good link! Cracked me up!

However, this guy is another legal positivist- defending Homos pro bono? Yuk.

http://kgov.com/docs/RobertsPressRelease.html


Uh....what exactly do you have against Roberts defending the rights of US citizens?

[BillyBob]

Was that a parody? I couldn't tell by the context of the original post. If it wasn't, consider me a bit stunned.

It is a parody and is funny because the NARAL ad is just as ridiculous.

[BillyBob]

Here is Rush's take on the matter.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_081005/content/truth_detector.guest.html

[CRASH]

Homosexuality has been a crime for 3600 years until the liberals got it de-criminalized in the past 30 years. Did you support the striking down of the Texas sodomy law?

[BillyBob]

Hosexuality has been a crime for 3600 years

Depending on where you lived.

until the liberals got it de-criminalized in the past 30 years. Did you support the striking down of the Texas sodomy law?

I don't support most laws which take away power from the states and place it in the hands of the federal government.

[CRASH]

Sad reply - I expected better from a Redneck since I dabble in redneckism.
Are you a Christian?

Homosexuality is criminal and always wrong. It is extremly destuctive. http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet3.html

You don't have problem with this either?

However, in his 2003 D.C. Circuit confirmation hearing, Roberts said: “Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent.”

[BillyBob]

Sad reply - I expected better from a Redneck since I dabble in redneckism.
Are you a Christian?

Depends on who you ask.



Homosexuality is criminal and always wrong. It is extremly destuctive. http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet3.html


It's not a crime in the US.


You don't have problem with this either?

However, in his 2003 D.C. Circuit confirmation hearing, Roberts said: “Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent.”

Of course not, Roberts was in no position to overturn the ruling of SCOTUS.

Don't tell me you don't know this...........? :nono:

[BillyBob]

But what specifically did Roberts defend in the homo case, do you know?

[Zimfan]

We all know that the new NARAL ad being played on CNN is chock full of lies about Robertson. It is typical of the demo-commies to invent lies, forge documents and continually practice the politics of personal destruction. No news there, it's the same old same old from the wacky lefties.

Here (http://mfile.akamai.com/5020/wma/rushlimb.download.akamai.com/5020/clips/05/08/081005_6_naral_ad_parody.asx) is thier latest offering.

:chuckle:

:rotfl:

[BillyBob]

Here (http://www.nytimes.com/packages/video/politics/Roberts-Ad-Quicktime.mov) is the real NARAL ad.



New York Times article:

TV Ad Attacking Court Nominee Provokes Furor


By LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: August 11, 2005

WASHINGTON, Aug. 10 - An advertisement that a leading abortion-rights organization began running on national television on Wednesday, opposing the Supreme Court nomination of John G. Roberts Jr. as one "whose ideology leads him to excuse violence against other Americans," quickly became the first flashpoint in the three-week-old confirmation process.


Naral Pro-Choice America has begun this advertising campaign against the nomination of Judge John G. Roberts Jr. to the Supreme Court.


Several prominent abortion rights supporters as well as a neutral media watchdog group said the advertisement was misleading and unfair, and a conservative group quickly took to the airwaves with an opposing advertisement.

The focus of the 30-second spot, which Naral Pro-Choice America is spending $500,000 to place on the Fox and CNN cable networks, as well as on broadcast stations in Maine and Rhode Island over the next two weeks, is on an argument in an abortion-related case that Judge Roberts made to the Supreme Court in the early 1990's, when he was working in the first Bush administration as the principal deputy solicitor general.

The question before the court was whether a Reconstruction-era civil rights law intended to protect freed slaves from the Ku Klux Klan could provide a basis for federal courts to issue injunctions against the increasingly frequent and violent demonstrations that were intended to block access to abortion clinics.

The court heard arguments in the case, Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, in October 1991 and then again the next October before finally ruling in January 1993, by a vote of 6 to 3, that the law did not apply. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, whom Mr. Roberts has been nominated to succeed, voted in dissent. The decision prompted Congressional passage of a new federal law to protect the clinics.

Mr. Roberts participated in both arguments, presenting the administration's view that the law in question, the Ku Klux Klan Act, did not apply to the clinic protests. In earlier cases, the Supreme Court had parsed the law, which prohibits conspiracies to deprive "any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws," as requiring proof that a conspiracy was motivated by a "class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus."

In this case, two lower federal courts had found that the clinic protests met that test because they were a form of discrimination against women. But Mr. Roberts argued that the demonstrators were not singling out women for discriminatory treatment but rather were trying to "prohibit the practice of abortion altogether." He told the court that even though only women could become pregnant or seek abortions, it was "wrong as a matter of law and logic" to regard opposition to abortion as the equivalent of discrimination against women.

The administration's position initially attracted relatively little attention when it entered the case in the spring of 1991. But after a summer of violent protests at clinics in Wichita, Kan., during which Mr. Roberts and other administration lawyers opposed the authority of a federal judge there to issue an injunction, the situation had become politically sensitive. Mr. Roberts began his second argument by saying the administration was not trying to defend the demonstrators' conduct but rather to "defend the proper interpretation" of the statute.

That distinction is blurred in Naral's advertisement, prepared by Struble Eichenbaum Communications, a Democratic media company here. The spot opens with a scene of devastation, the bombing of an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Ala., in January 1998. Emily Lyons, a clinic employee who was seriously injured in the attack, appears on the screen. "When a bomb ripped through my clinic, I almost lost my life," she says.

Mr. Roberts's image then appears, superimposed on a faint copy of the brief he signed in the 1991 case. "Supreme Court nominee John Roberts filed court briefs supporting violent fringe groups and a convicted clinic bomber," the narrator's voice says. The spot concludes by urging viewers to: "Call your senators. Tell them to oppose John Roberts. America can't afford a justice whose ideology leads him to excuse violence against other Americans."

According to Factcheck.org, a nonpartisan project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania that monitors political advertisements and speeches for accuracy, "the ad is false" and "uses the classic tactic of guilt by association." The imagery is "especially misleading" in linking the 1998 clinic bombing to the brief Mr. Roberts signed seven years earlier, Factcheck said in an analysis it posted on its Web site, www.factcheck.org, under the heading: "Naral Falsely Accuses Supreme Court Nominee Roberts."

As the Factcheck critique began to be trumpeted by conservative groups early Wednesday, Naral prepared a rebuttal of what it called "glaring errors" in the organization's analysis. Michael Bray, a defendant in the case, had been convicted several years earlier for his role in bombing abortion clinics, Naral said, adding that since the Bush administration and Mr. Bray were on the same side of the Supreme Court case, "John Roberts did, therefore, side with a convicted clinic bomber" as well as with Operation Rescue, "a violent fringe group."

Naral's president, Nancy Keenan, defended the advertisement during an interview in her office here.

"It's tough and it's accurate," Ms. Keenan said.

"It has done exactly what we expected it to do," she added, namely to provide a "wake-up call" about the stakes for reproductive freedom at issue in the current Supreme Court vacancy.

"Conventional wisdom says the Roberts nomination is a done deal, so it behooves us to make sure the American public knows who John Roberts really is," she said.

Ms. Keenan, a former Montana state legislator who has headed the organization for the past year, said it was important to note that because the federal government was not a party in the Bray case, the administration's participation in the Supreme Court appeal was voluntary.

"They chose what side to take," she said. "That tells us something."

Within the larger liberal coalition of which Naral is a part, there was considerable uneasiness about the advertisement, although leaders of other groups generally refused to speak on the record. One who did, Frances Kissling, the longtime president of Catholics for a Free Choice, said she was "deeply upset and offended" by the advertisement, which she called "far too intemperate and far too personal."

Ms. Kissling, who initiated the conversation with a reporter, said the ad "does step over the line into the kind of personal character attack we shouldn't be engaging in."

She added: "As a pro-choice person, I don't like being placed on the defensive by my leaders. Naral should pull it and move on."

Walter Dellinger, a former acting solicitor general in the Clinton administration and longtime Naral supporter, sent a letter on Wednesday to the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and its ranking Democrat, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, respectively. Mr. Dellinger said he had disagreed with Mr. Roberts's argument in the Bray case but considered it unfair to give "the impression that Roberts is somehow associated with clinic bombers." He added that "it would be regrettable if the only refutation of these assertions about Roberts came from groups opposed to abortion rights."

A conservative group, Progress for America, said it would spend $300,000 to run ads, beginning Thursday, on the same stations on which the Naral ad is appearing. "How low can these frustrated liberals sink?" its advertisement asks. -end


Good question! :BillyBob:

[Four O'Clock]

...as a moderate who believes our judicial system should be predicated on the assumption of impartiality, I was hoping for an "O'Conner type clone" to replace her and Roberts just may be the right choice. He seems to lean a tad right and doesn't have any look of an activist about him. The fact that he worked with gay activists argues in favor of his confirmation, not because many gays would applaud him, but because it demonstrates exactly what the left and right both say they want, even if neither side means it.
The bottom line is that radical wing-nuts on both sides ONLY want a jurist who will promote THEIR agenda.

Sidebar: The NARAL ad is totally ridiculous partisan crapola; to be fair it reminds me of the conservative right a few years back trying to gut/cut back school lunch programs by trying to classify ketchup packets as a "vegetable group".

But the recent ad is another example of why Roe v. Wade is the worst judicial overreach in the history of our country IMO. Now our elected officials spend countless hours away from their core duties worrying about EVERY nominee's views on abortion. If left alone in the 70's the feminists would have locked horns with the conservatives and hammered out some sort of compromise that would have pleased the centrist majority that has always existed on the abortion issue, been regarded as legit, and offended ONLY the far right/left wing nuts.

[HerodionRomulus]

Homosexuality has been a crime for 3600 years until the liberals got it de-criminalized in the past 30 years. Did you support the striking down of the Texas sodomy law?

Incorrect.
The Church, both East and West, had Rites for the blessing of same-sex couples for centuries, as late as the 17th c. in some parts of the EOC.
The High Middle Ages in Western Europe saw a quite open honest and accepting attitude towards gay people by and within the church as well as society.
There was certainly NO condemnation of King Richard the Lion Hearted who had a relationship with the French Dauphin.
Or Jean the Bishop of Orleans who was the lover of the French King until the king dumped him for someone new. Jean eventually ended up in a long relationship with Ralph the Archbishop of Tours.
Then there is King James I who had several male relationships including a French cousin Esme Stuart and of course with the Duke of Buckingham. It was no secret at the time.

And let's don't forget the Greeks. The Tomb of Hercules was a famous gay tourist/pilgrim location, considering Herc's relationship with Iolus.

Then there is "Jonathan you love for me was wonderful. Passing the love of women." King David II Sam. 1:26.

Sources available upon request. :duh:

[BillyBob]

What I find interesting about all this 'spin' concerning Roberts is that Conservatives think he is a pro-choice abortionist and the Liberals think he is a Christian extremist anti-abortionist who supports terrorists who blow up abortion clinics.

They both can't be right. :doh:

[Greywolf]

What I find interesting about all this 'spin' concerning Roberts is that Conservatives think he is a pro-choice abortionist and the Liberals think he is a Christian extremist anti-abortionist who supports terrorists who blow up abortion clinics.

They both can't be right. :doh:

Welcome to the world of politics. Here's your name tag.

[Agape4Robin]

Oh brother! :doh:

:sozo: Let's just pick a Justice and get on with it already!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[beefalobilly]

i heard on fox news that naral pulled that ad

[beefalobilly]

Sad reply - I expected better from a Redneck since I dabble in redneckism.
Are you a Christian?

Homosexuality is criminal and always wrong. It is extremly destuctive. http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet3.html

You don't have problem with this either?

However, in his 2003 D.C. Circuit confirmation hearing, Roberts said: “Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent.”

that link is disturbing

[Zimfan]

Here (http://www.nytimes.com/packages/video/politics/Roberts-Ad-Quicktime.mov) is the real NARAL ad.



The only difference I can see is that the first one you posted is rather more honest and straightforward. :think:

[BillyBob]

i heard on fox news that naral pulled that ad


I figured they would eventually, what is the point of passing along propaganda when everyone else proves that it's just :cow: .

[ :cow: = Bull**** ]

[beefalobilly]

I figured they would eventually, what is the point of passing along propaganda when everyone else proves that it's just :cow: .

[ :cow: = Bull**** ]

Yeah, I haven't seen the ad, but I heard that it associates him with people who bomb abortion clinics :think: :down:

[jeremiah]

I think that deep down most people know that Roberts is a man who would never vote to overturn Roe vs Wade! As Ann Coulter pointed out in a recent editorial, David Souter's record was far more promising at the same stage of his nomination and yet he has proved to be a Pro- abort and as liberal as most Democrats.
Since Bush nominated such a borderline "conservative" in every way, then if the left can defeat him after they paint him as a pro-life extremist: Then the next candidate will have to be even more left leaning than Roberts.
If he is nominated and then votes pro abortion, Bush can "honestly" say, I told you I did not have a litmus test, and I told you I did not know how he would vote.
He can also "really" honestly say, to the Conservative Christian groups who are fighting for him, this was the man you supported and wanted approved after I nominated him.
The smart move would be to join Naral and oppose Roberts and demand a clear pro- life nominee instead. I would say to Naral, this is your man and not ours, do with him what you want. He belongs to your side. He is a pro abort, unless he can declare unashamedly otherwise.
Here are the historical facts since 1973. Almost all judges and politicians who seek an office and declare themselves to be pro choice are almost 100 % faithful to their side. Compare that to the many betrayals after acheiving office by those who claimed to be pro- life.
The other group who will not claim to be either pro- life or pro- choice almost always turn out to vote for abortion.
Even when we get someone who claims to be pro- life we can never be as sure as the other side is of their claimants. The "undeclared" are historically overwhelmingly on the side of the pro- aborts, and we should not be shy in claiming so, and giving them over to Naral and their ads.

[BillyBob]

Yeah, I haven't seen the ad, but I heard that it associates him with people who bomb abortion clinics :think: :down:

Here is the ad

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/video/politics/Roberts-Ad-Quicktime.mov

[Frank Ernest]

What I find interesting about all this 'spin' concerning Roberts is that Conservatives think he is a pro-choice abortionist and the Liberals think he is a Christian extremist anti-abortionist who supports terrorists who blow up abortion clinics.

They both can't be right. :doh:
Yes, they can. Lie-berals can claim to support diametrically-opposing arguments and see no conflict. F'rinstance: they support higher minimum wages AND higher taxes.

It's a :Commie: thing. You wouldn't understand. :darwinsm:

[BillyBob]

You're right.......

[Gerald]

Homosexuality has been a crime for 3600 years...Wanna know why?

Because back in the day everybody had their noses in everybody else's business; no TV back then y'see. MYODB is a pretty recent thing.