Another reason Oblahma and HillBilly can't be allowed to win

MonsterMark

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
9,225
Reaction score
3
Location
United States
Supreme Court decisions and new Justice appointments.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

States can require voters to produce photo identification, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, upholding a Republican-inspired law that Democrats say will keep some poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Great News for those of us that want 'fair' elections.

Bad news for Dems that want and need to cheat.:eek:
 
Don't start suffering from the delusion that McCain is going to appoint constructionist justices. It isn't going to happen. He's a liberal. He'll appoint judges no more conservative than Sandra Day O'Connor.
 
Don't start suffering from the delusion that McCain is going to appoint constructionist justices. It isn't going to happen. He's a liberal. He'll appoint judges no more conservative than Sandra Day O'Connor.

Even if that were the case, that's still infinitely better than Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
 
Most people I talk to now that are republican, aren't talking up McCain. Instead, they are talking down Clinton and Obhama.

I find that very telling. They seem to be more anti democrat then pro McCain.

SO when do you all start throwing around the "Clinton Hater" or "Obhama Hater" comments? You know, kinda like the "Bush Hater" comments you've been tossing around?
 
Even if that were the case, that's still infinitely better than Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
Losing 5 to 4 is not better than losing 7 to 2. You're wrong.

How bad is it when the Republicans start talking the "lesser of two evils" talk after their candidate has been selected?

When you compromise, you have already lost.
 
Most people I talk to now that are republican, aren't talking up McCain. Instead, they are talking down Clinton and Obhama.

I find that very telling. They seem to be more anti democrat then pro McCain.

SO when do you all start throwing around the "Clinton Hater" or "Obhama Hater" comments? You know, kinda like the "Bush Hater" comments you've been tossing around?
"Bush Hater" refers to a mindset that the man cannot do anything right. Anyone who is intellectually honest will recognize good decisions along with bad ones. I have praised Bush when he's done good things, but I've not been blind to his flaws and errors, either. Joey, you've been consistent in that you've never said anything good about Bush even though he's clearly done things that have benefited the country. That's a bit on the denial side, thus the "hater" monicker.

As far as Obie or Hilly, I firmly believe they are completely on the wrong side of America. If either one of them passes a tax cut or vetoes a gun control bill, you can be sure that I'll be there to make note of it.

But I won't hold my breath.
 
Most people I talk to now that are republican, aren't talking up McCain. Instead, they are talking down Clinton and Obhama.

I find that very telling. They seem to be more anti democrat then pro McCain.

SO when do you all start throwing around the "Clinton Hater" or "Obhama Hater" comments? You know, kinda like the "Bush Hater" comments you've been tossing around?
It's no secret that many people are considering this election the "lesser of 3 evils", so to speak. I've certainly not tried to hide this. All 3 have some good points, and all 3 have some flaws that are concerning to me and my views. It's hard to get excited about the election when you aren't excited about any of the candidates. In my case, I'm not so much anti democrat as you put, but I do see bigger areas of concern in Obama and Clinton.
 
Losing 5 to 4 is not better than losing 7 to 2. You're wrong.

How bad is it when the Republicans start talking the "lesser of two evils" talk after their candidate has been selected?

When you compromise, you have already lost.
That's an opinion that I don't share. Compromise, within reason, is not necessarily a bad thing. Your statement is much too broad. And although the outcome of losing 5 to 4 would be the same as losing 7 to 2 per your example, the HOPE of change would be more diminished in a 7 to 2 loss. The chances of winning become much smaller in a 7 to 2 majority versus a 5 to 4 majority. I struggled under the Clinton presidency due to differing views, just as others struggle now under Bush. I'm not better than them. This is just one mans opinion.
 
He is not electable.

Obama-RGB.jpg


Wright-Obama.jpg


Baptism_of_Obama.jpg
 
I agree. Obama will lose in a landslide. So what are we going to do about McCain?
 
Bush won 31 states in 2004.

My guess is McCain will win 36.

Our only hope is that the Dems don't reach a 60 vote in the Senate and become filibuster and veto proof.

If that doesn't occur, then we need a new Senate leader and 'hopefully', the guy he names as V.P. is a conservative, not a rino.
 
That's an opinion that I don't share. Compromise, within reason, is not necessarily a bad thing. Your statement is much too broad. And although the outcome of losing 5 to 4 would be the same as losing 7 to 2 per your example, the HOPE of change would be more diminished in a 7 to 2 loss. The chances of winning become much smaller in a 7 to 2 majority versus a 5 to 4 majority. I struggled under the Clinton presidency due to differing views, just as others struggle now under Bush. I'm not better than them. This is just one mans opinion.
Come on Kbob, you know better than this.

When you compromise politically with people who want to hurt this country, you always lose, even if only a little at a time. The only way to keep our freedoms is to halt and reverse the progression of laws being written at a breakneck pace, by the legislative, executive, and judicial branch. You know as well as I that all three branches are not supposed to make law. Only a strict constructionist justice will see it that way.

If you're comfortable with more justices like Kennedy, Souter, and Stevens, then you should be happy with McCain's choices. But we can only hope that the new guy will not be swayed by Ginsburg and Breyer. I'd rather not leave it to hope, I'd rather defeat the enemies of this country, foreign and domestic.
 
Come on Kbob, you know better than this.

When you compromise politically with people who want to hurt this country, you always lose, even if only a little at a time. The only way to keep our freedoms is to halt and reverse the progression of laws being written at a breakneck pace, by the legislative, executive, and judicial branch. You know as well as I that all three branches are not supposed to make law. Only a strict constructionist justice will see it that way.

If you're comfortable with more justices like Kennedy, Souter, and Stevens, then you should be happy with McCain's choices. But we can only hope that the new guy will not be swayed by Ginsburg and Breyer. I'd rather not leave it to hope, I'd rather defeat the enemies of this country, foreign and domestic.

Don't get me wrong, of course I'm for justices that accept the constitution strictly and literally. Interpretting the constitution so that it will conform to some popular, politically-correct issue is horrible in theory and practice. That puts the power in the hands of the supreme court instead of the constitution. My opinion was much broader in scope.

So to clarify, I hope more justices will be appointed with this same philosophy. However, that doesn't seem likely in the near term. And the current constructionist justices I hope will continue to stick with their (correct) stance and have the patience to wait for reinforcements at a later time, through the proper political processes.

That is all. Carry on.
bw_salute.gif
 
We need to appoint Oprah to the Supreme Court. Then it would be a compasionate court with caring ruling. :D
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top