You really think someone’s going to be interested in helping either of Dubya’s Drunken Daughters reproduce?
I guess it’s not always true that there are some things money can’t buy.
Yes I knew that. The law he signed is supposed to give Terri Schiavo “her day in court”, because George W. Bush seems to think that her case has not been given due consideration by our justice system. If he was so concerned about this, then perhaps he should make sure that cases in Texas also get reviewed by a federal court.
I wouldn’t worry about it too much, because there are always people ready to defend him for anything.
Why don’t you wait until he has a first grandchild and see what I say about it, before trying to predict the future?
I don’t know, I don’t think it’d be that much of a hardship to inseminate either of them, even without that whole world-dominating dynasty perk thrown in.
Especially after a few beers.
I’m guessing you never tried to defend Chelsea for being dragged into her daddy’s politics?
Based on your vitriol towards Bush and now his daughters, you’re as bad as the “right-wing zealots” you seem to be railing against. :rolleyes:
Pure idle speculation that is OT:
Does anyone seriously think that if one of the twins became pregnant w/o the sanctity of marriage (say, next week) that she would not get an abortion?
Just a stray thought.
but as to the thread–Bush has shown that he has principles of expediency not of er, principles. IMO, he has thrown a bone to his anti-choice base (which may have not even wanted it–the polls are strongly against this move by Congress).
Maybe this’ll teach W some humility.
yeah.
I’d do it for free, just to piss off the Bush apologists. 
“Once more into the breach, dear friends, once more!”
Hank the Five, Shakespeare
Either that, or soon after Laura becomes the spokeswoman for fetal alcohol syndrome research.
duffer: I’m guessing you never tried to defend Chelsea for being dragged into her daddy’s politics?
While I tend to dislike vulgar comments about the Bush daughters, I have to point out that there’s a difference in the two cases. Liberals were outraged by conservatives gratuitously taunting the young-adolescent Chelsea’s looks (e.g., Limbaugh’s remark about her being the “White House dog”) or just generally making nasty remarks about her for no reason other than that she was her parents’ daughter. Chelsea herself had done nothing to deserve that.
The Bush twins, on the other hand, are adults who are being slammed mostly on the basis of their own freely chosen actions as adults (the illegal alcohol incidents, the “naked photos” flap, the Vogue photo spread, the socialite lifestyle, the awkward campaign speeches). They voluntarily joined their father’s campaign and accepted the role of political public figures. They’re fair game.
Of course, they also get a lot of gratuitous nastiness and vindictiveness just because some people dislike their father, which is one reason I don’t like mean remarks about them. However, it’s still a lot lower on the meanness scale than taunting a fourteen-year-old about her braces because you oppose her dad’s politics.
eleanorigby: Does anyone seriously think that if one of the twins became pregnant w/o the sanctity of marriage (say, next week) that she would not get an abortion?
Actually, I could easily see either one of them choosing not to get an abortion in such circumstances. I wouldn’t be outraged if she did choose an abortion (although I would definitely brand her a flaming hypocrite if she then to support an anti-abortion platform), but for all I know she might well choose to have the baby. If she did, though, I’d bet that she would hastily marry the father.
Oh, boy. While I agree with your point, couldn’t you have chosen a different phrase?
You don’t find his actions even mildly hypocritical?
What position have the sisters taken on abortion?
I have no defensible idea whether either Barbara or Jenna would get an abortion if they became pregnant - and neither do you, eleanorrigby.
No, I don’t.
Bush opened a door for further qualified review, and nothing else. If Bush didn’t believe in the law, but signed it anyway, then that would be hypocritical. If he believed in the law, but didn’t sign it, that would also be hypocritical. Based on his comments, I’m pretty sure he agreed with the law he signed.
Also, people change. People grow, and have new experiences that shape their opinions. Every case has different variables…different shades of gray. Even if Bush signed a law in 1999 ordering the ruthless slaughter of every sick poor child in Texas, it does not apply here. This is a different time, and a different case. Hypocrisy is not always proven by past actions.
Are you a hypocrite if you tell your kids not to shoplift, even though you did it once as a kid?
Are you saying that George Bush as an adult, as governor, has the moral compass of a child? I have apparently misjudged you.
Uh, no.
Seems more and more likely that this case will now become the justification for the “nuclear option.” Many conservatives are even agreeing that Congress may have sunk its own bill so that this would be a political win.
Which is to say: is that really all that moronic? Or is it actualy pretty smart? Remember, Bush wouldn’t leave his ranch for virtually anything, and then he’s suddenly flying back to Washington to sign a bill that could have more quickly and cheaply been flown to him. If that’s not political theater, I don’t know what is.
Just so I understand, When Bush changed his position, it’s “gorwing,” but when Kerry did it he “flip-flopped”?
:smack: GROWING