The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Breaking News => Topic started by: Wretched Excess on June 26, 2008, 09:30:20 AM
-
That's the majority in DC v. Heller.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/
-
I am pleasantly, but totally surprised.
Can we clean the title of this thread up? it's going to be a talker, and needs to be
more clear as to the subject.
-
Supreme Court strikes down D.C. handgun ban
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first definitive pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.
link (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jZOi0QxIZk7wY8br0MHhsEz-wL-wD91HQBVO2)
-
I imagine the primitives on Skins's island are going batshit crazy about this.
Alas, it's very hot and humid here, and so I'm going to take off for a while.
If someone in air-conditioned quarters can post primitive reactions, I'd appreciate it.
But man, 5-4 is too narrow for me.
It seems we still need at least two more Supreme Court justices to make the court more reflective of popular opinion. At least two more. This should have been a no-brainer, 9-0.
-
Am I to assume Kennedy finally got one right? :whatever:
The 4 opposed shouldn't be on the f'n bench. This is a basic right inserted into the Constitution at the time of our founding.
-
Way too close of a decision.
And this statement...
In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."
... is a classic example of trying to reframe the debate. If that were the case, then you'd see a large numer of advocacy groups trying to prevent gov't from keeping guns out of the hands of convicted felons or to prevent gov't from having individuals create nukes in their basement, So obviously, we as a society have the right to draw a line and say "You committed a certain crime and so you lose your RKBA. And we don't want people building bombs in their basements." Stevens and the other 3 want to draw the line way too far the other way. I have no doubt those 4 would vote to confiscate all privately owned guns if they could have their way, though they'd never admit to it publicly.
.
-
This is a Red Letter Day for America and a very welcome acknowledgement that the Constitution does still have a little bearing on our country.
-
I imagine the primitives on Skins's island are going batshit crazy about this.
Alas, it's very hot and humid here, and so I'm going to take off for a while.
If someone in air-conditioned quarters can post primitive reactions, I'd appreciate it.
But man, 5-4 is too narrow for me.
It seems we still need at least two more Supreme Court justices to make the court more reflective of popular opinion. At least two more. This should have been a no-brainer, 9-0.
certainly should have been a 9-0 no-brainer decision but I would suggest that instead of saying to reflect popular opinion to say reflect the actual Constitution.
-
Way too close of a decision.
And this statement...
In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."
Ummm, Justice Stevens...
Having just spent 8 years at war to throw off the tyranny of elected officials (don't forget, it wasn't just King George that waged war against the Americans - to punish their rebellion and bring them in line with the crown - it was the British Parliament in lockstep with the SoB), YES I think limiting the authority of elected officials to keep the power-driven in check was EXACTLY WHAT THE FRAMERS CHOSE, YOU DUMB****!
-
In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."
why yes John Paul, they actually did. are you just now figuring this out ?
-
5-4 is ridiculous in this case. If there was ever a case which afforded the usual "gang of four" an opportunity to demonstrate they can be on the side of the US Constitution, this was it. Instead they show us once again how little regard they have for this nation as established by our constitution and the blood and guts of the men and women who have given their lives for this country in order to keep us a free people.
If this Supreme Court was about interpreting the constitution, this would have be a 9-0 decision. The Second Amendment is not ambiguous or unclear. Instead, what we have is at least four justices who admit this day that what our Constitution clearly states makes no difference if it does not support their radical agenda.
While this ruling is correct in its outcome, the margin on the correct side is dangerously inadequate. I find my celebration of this occasion greatly tempered by my depression caused by the reality of what it truly represents.
-
In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."
why yes John Paul, they actually did. are you just now figuring this out ?
Agreed.
-
Way too close of a decision.
And this statement...
In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."
Ummm, Justice Stevens...
Having just spent 8 years at war to throw off the tyranny of elected officials (don't forget, it wasn't just King George that waged war against the Americans - to punish their rebellion and bring them in line with the crown - it was the British Parliament in lockstep with the SoB), YES I think limiting the authority of elected officials to keep the power-driven in check was EXACTLY WHAT THE FRAMERS CHOSE, YOU DUMB****!
Absolutely, Hi5!
-
I'm doing my Happy Dance!!!!! :-) :yahoo:
And I'm going to go buy some ammo. Heck, we may even treat ourselves to a new handgun. I think I'll go to the range too. :II:
-
Those folks in DC shouldn't get too anxious. I just heard Fenty speak (Mayor of DC) and it sounds as if semi-autos will still be banned.
Fenty And Police Chief Speak (http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player.html?liveSiteStream_::_1_::_undefined&Live_Site_Stream&Live%2520Stream&acc&Live%2520Stream&-1&News&180&&&new)
-
Those folks in DC shouldn't get too anxious. I just heard Fenty speak (Mayor of DC) and it sounds as if semi-autos will still be banned.
now that "shall not be infringed" is just what it says, I kinda doubt it.
-
I can't wait until the people of D.C. can defend themselves and the violent crime stats come down. Fenty and Lainier will be eating crow.
-
I can't wait until the people of D.C. can defend themselves and the violent crime stats come down. Fenty and Lainier will be eating crow.
Those that defend themselves with deadly force will likely still be up on charges in the District, on the prosecutor's thinking that the USSC may have affirmed the right to KEEP and BEAR arms for "hunting and self defense", but it didn't say anything about USING the arms for hunting or self defense.
The bureaucrats will not be denied their pound of flesh for this "outrage", on that you can rest assured.
-
That's expected to say the least. Of course the ACLU will be absent if such a case ever comes to pass. *eyeroll*
You'd think Fenty and Lainier would welcome the housekeeping.
-
That's expected to say the least. Of course the ACLU will be absent if such a case ever comes to pass. *eyeroll*
You'd think Fenty and Lainier would welcome the housekeeping.
if things get better they can't whine for more money to (effectively) keep things the same or worse
-
A NOTE FROM NEAL (Boortz snipped off the newz)
Even though I'm on vacation this week ... with cell phones turned off ... I've been waiting for the Supremes to issue their ruling on our right to own guns. Finally the Supreme Court, though by a narrow margin, has ruled that the 2nd Amendment protects the rights of citizens not the rights of government. Good news for those who believe in the sanctity of the individual, bad news for those that believe we are here merely to serve the ends of government.
Here's something else you may want to ponder as the uproar over this ruling spreads. (Oh, those poor Brady people). Without the appointments made to the Supreme Court by George W. Bush this probably would have been completely different. With Al Gore in the presidency your right to own a gun for self-defense would have been ripped away today.
-
I can't wait until the people of D.C. can defend themselves and the violent crime stats come down. Fenty and Lainier will be eating crow.
Those that defend themselves with deadly force will likely still be up on charges in the District, on the prosecutor's thinking that the USSC may have affirmed the right to KEEP and BEAR arms for "hunting and self defense", but it didn't say anything about USING the arms for hunting or self defense.
The bureaucrats will not be denied their pound of flesh for this "outrage", on that you can rest assured.
They didn't limit what I can hunt did they?
I'll just be hunting varmits. *wink, wink*
-
Justice Kennedy, in a rare moment of lucidity, has, for once decided that the Constitution actually means what it says......don't count on such clarity of thought from him tomorrow.....fortunately for the Republic, today is the last day of the current SCOTUS term.......
If you read Justice Scalia's majority opinion, the comments of the DC mayor are uneducated bullcrap, and completely untrue.....just pandering to his liberal and black constituancies......typical of the type......DC may be allowed to establish some form of licensing scheme, but according to the decision it must be "reasonable", and cannot be arbitrarily withheld....this will also strike down Chicago's ban as well.....there are some nebulous areas in the opinion, specifically regarding the effects on such weapons as "machine guns", and its effect of the '36, and '86 NFA statutes, but the decision will go a long way toward clarifying the points for future litigation. This is a BIG win.......and will result in a lot of litigation over the next few years, vis-a-vis other bans/limitations/prohibitions.....but a giant step in the right direction.
It is a great day for freedom!
doc
-
I just read that the president of the NRA was just on foxnews saying they were going to file suit in
chicago against their handgun laws.
as I understand it, chicago has a law that says that a resident may own a handgun only if it is
registered by the chicago police dept . . . . but the chicago police department refuses to register any
handgun purchased after 1982, thereby creating a de facto ban on handguns. oh, and I assume
everyone has read the stories about crime running rampant in chicago recently. :whatever:
anyway, let's see what The BarackStar! has to say about that.
-
I just read that the president of the NRA was just on foxnews saying they were going to file suit in
chicago against their handgun laws.
as I understand it, chicago has a law that says that a resident may own a handgun only if it is
registered by the chicago police dept . . . . but the chicago police department refuses to register any
handgun purchased after 1982, thereby creating a de facto ban on handguns. oh, and I assume
everyone has read the stories about crime running rampant in chicago recently. :whatever:
anyway, let's see what The BarackStar! has to say about that.
The SCOTUS decision specifically overturns de facto bans as well, and forbids "registration", it will allow "licensing", however, you have to have a "license" (FOID) in Illinois to own a firearm at present anyway......so Chicago is SOL......
doc
-
response from BHO:
“I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today’s ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.
“As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today's decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.â€
Link (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/26/1169956.aspx)
compared to his comments on the SCOTUS rape ruling, this represents a moment of clarity, despite the fact that
he seems to take at least three different positions on the issue. this guy is really, really, REALLY beginning to bore
the shit out of me. :yawn: :-)
but he seems to miss the point, of course, that the right for citizens to own handguns is THE MEANS BY WHICH
our communities and children are kept safe.
-
How long before the DC idiots allow handguns but ban posession of all ammunition?
-
How long before the DC idiots allow handguns but ban posession of all ammunition?
The decisions forbids banning ammunition (by specifying possession of an "operable" firearm/handgun for self defense).....and amazingly also throws out the requirements for "trigger locks", and dissassembly.......it is much broader than I expected.
doc
-
By far the most moronic statement by any of the dissenting Black Robes:
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."
What. The. F**k? :thatsright:
-
response from BHO:
“I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today’s ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.
“As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today's decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.â€
Link (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/26/1169956.aspx)
compared to his comments on the SCOTUS rape ruling, this represents a moment of clarity, despite the fact that
he seems to take at least three different positions on the issue. this guy is really, really, REALLY beginning to bore
the shit out of me. :yawn: :-)
but he seems to miss the point, of course, that the right for citizens to own handguns is THE MEANS BY WHICH
our communities and children are kept safe.
Gee, sounds kinda like, "I actually did vote for it, before I voted against it...." :whatever:
Can this moron take a position on ANYTHING?
-
By far the most moronic statement by any of the dissenting Black Robes:
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."
What. The. F**k? :thatsright:
You're gonna need one of these license plates...
http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,9333.0.html
-
By far the most moronic statement by any of the dissenting Black Robes:
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."
What. The. F**k? :thatsright:
His comments show just how "out of touch" he is regarding both the instant issue, and reality in general.......
Where, pray tell Justice Breyer, would be a better place to own a loaded handgun than a "crime-ridden urban area".......
Typical liberal........they are Sooooo afraid that gunowners will reduce the numbers of their favorite constituants.......the criminals.
doc
-
Oooobama has armed security right?
What about SCOTUS? I assume they have something akin to Secret Service.
Hypocritical much?
-
Oooobama has armed security right?
What about SCOTUS? I assume they have something akin to Secret Service.
Hypocritical much?
Justices have security details from the US Marshals Service I believe........
doc
-
Not that I would ever begrudge a high profile official the right to protection but....
we may not be high profile and incur the wrath of political assassins but we deserve to excersice our second amend. rights just the same. This should have been 9-0.
-
I wonder if the SCOTUS is bitter, and that's why they decided to cling to their guns. :-)
-
If I H5 everyone I agree with in this thread, I'll be here all night.
Some time ago in NY, there was a NYS Court of Appeals decision about a pistol permit holder who, when moving from one county to another, had his permit changed from full carry to "Hunting and Target Only." The HTO restriction does not allow for carry in self-defense.
I expect the 2nd Circuit to get a case about this very provision soon.
-
As I understand it, several courts have decided that the police are not there to protect the individual, but only the general public. That said, how the hell is one to defend themselves when the police are otherwise engaged?? The DC & Chicago gun bans are just a bunch of feel-good laws that really accomplish NOTHING. They never have and never will. Sure, guns were "banned" in those cities, but seriously, did it do any good?? I think not, as both have been rife with crime for many years, ban or not. The fact that eludes the "Barfstar" is that criminal could give a shit about "laws". (Hmmm, maybe THAT'S WHY they're called "criminals"??)
Now, we as law abiding gun owners, need to work to overturn the NFA of 1934 (which may be tricky) and the one instituted by our "wonderful" :whatever: Ronald Reagan in 1986. I can see the 1986 gun laws getting possibly amended or overturned. The NFA of 1934 just placed a tax on certain weapons. (Of course, the BATF wasn't issuing tax stamps at that time and for many years afterwards, but now they do). The The GCA of 1986 has placed a defacto ban on certain guns, which, IMHO, is contrary to the 2nd Amendment. It's going to be a long, hard road to travel for the NRA and us gun owners. Hopefully, we, the PEOPLE, can keep the gun grabbers and the Nanny Statists out of office for a while.
Too bad it wasn't a 9-0 vote because the 2nd Amendment seems pretty clear to me. Just goes to show how much harm has been done by the Klinton regime.
-
Even though the opinion was Scalia, the ban itself just got...
(http://chicago.indymedia.org/usermedia/image/9/thumb/alitowned.jpg)
-
I can't wait until the people of D.C. can defend themselves and the violent crime stats come down. Fenty and Lainier will be eating crow.
Maybe when the people of D.C. can do that...Police Chief Kathy Lanier can stop her military style traffic control points she has deployed around one particularly violent neighborhood.
Perhaps then the Deputy Mayor can walk the national mall without fear of being robbed in broad daylight at gunpoint for a second time.
-
Thor - that's exactly right. I think the courts actually ruled on that. And IRONY!! It was the govt of D.C. that was sued.
http://www.gunowners.org/sk0503.htm
A good summation here -
the court promptly exonerated the District of Columbia and its police, as was clearly required by the fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.
As the phrase "fundamental principle of American law" suggests, this holding is not some legal aberration unique to the District of Columbia. It is universal, being enuciated by formal statute as well as judicial decision in many states. Nor is it simply a cynical ploy for government to avoid just liability. The proposition that individuals must be responsible for their own immediate safety, with police providing only an auxiliary general deterrent, is inherent in a high crime society.
-
Dixie, actually, there were several court cases:
Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit,
686 F.2d 616 (1882)
Cal. Govt. Code Sections 821,845,846
Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (S.Ct. Ala. 1985)
Chapman v. City of Philadelphia, 434 A.2d 753 (Sup. Ct. Penn. 1981)
Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 C.3d 197,185 Cal. Rptr. 252,649
P.2d 894 (S.Ct. Cal. 1982)
Hartzler v. City of San Jose, App., 120 Cal. Rptr 5 (1975)
Ill. Rev. Stat. 4-102
Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill App 2d 460 (1968)
Keane v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 567 (1977)
Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)
Marshall v. Winston, 389 S.E. 2nd 902 (Va. 1990)
Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C. App. 1983)
Morris v. Musser, 478 A.2d 937 (1984)
Reiff v. City of Philadelphia, 477F. Supp. 1262 (E.D.Pa. 1979)
Riss v. City of New York, 293 N.Y. 2d 897 (1968)
Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1977)
Silver v. Minneapolis 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn, 1969)
Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansvill, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.)
Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal. Rep 339 (1980)
Warren v. District of Columbia, D.C. App., 444 A.2d 1 (1981)
Weutrich v. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382 A.2d 929, 930 (1978)
"Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect
individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty
is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection
of the general public." (Lynch v. NC Dept. Justice)
The law in New York remains as decided by the Court of Appeals case
Riss v. New York: the government is not liable even for a grossly negligent
failure to protect a crime victim. In the Riss case, a young woman telephoned
the police and begged for help because her ex-boyfriend had repeatedly
threatened "If I can't have you, not one else will have you, and when I get
through with you, no one else will want you." The day after she had pleaded
for police protection, the ex-boyfriend threw lye in her face, blinding her
in one eye, severely damaging the other, and permanently scarring her
features. "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to
understand", wrote a dissenting opinion, "is that, in conformity to the
dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus
by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City
of New York which now denies all responsibility to her." Riss v. New York,
22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958).
Ruth Brunell called the police on twenty different occasions to beg
for protection from her husband. He was arrested only one time. One evening
Mr. Brunell telephoned his wife and told her he was coming over to kill her.
When she called police, they refused her request that they come to protect
her. They told her to call back when he got there. Mr. Brunell stabbed his
wife to death before she could call the police to tell them that he was
there. The court held that the San Jose police were not liable for ignoring
Mrs. Brunell's pleas for help. Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App.
3d 6 (1975).
http://www.rkba.org/judicial/no-police-protection
-
thanks! I knew there were more. I have bookmarked rkba.org now.
-
Dixie, you're welcome !!
Gun advocate sends.....
Also, I must wonder if the ACLU will change their tune, now that the 2nd Amendment has been clarified and affirmed as an individual right??
Gun Control
Why doesn't the ACLU support an individual's unlimited right to keep and bear arms?
BACKGROUND
The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times.
We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.
IN BRIEF
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.
Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.
The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.
ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." — Policy #47
ARGUMENTS, FACTS, QUOTES
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
— The Second Amendment to the Constitution
"Since the Second Amendment. . . applies only to the right of the State to maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right to possess a firearm."
— U.S. v. Warin (6th Circuit, 1976)
Unless the Constitution protects the individual's right to own all kinds of arms, there is no principled way to oppose reasonable restrictions on handguns, Uzis or semi-automatic rifles.
If indeed the Second Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to bear arms in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to possess bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD missiles and even nuclear warheads, for they, like handguns, rifles and M-16s, are arms. Moreover, it is hard to imagine any serious resistance to the military without such arms. Yet few, if any, would argue that the Second Amendment gives individuals the unlimited right to own any weapons they please. But as soon as we allow governmental regulation of any weapons, we have broken the dam of Constitutional protection. Once that dam is broken, we are not talking about whether the government can constitutionally restrict arms, but rather what constitutes a reasonable restriction.
http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html
Will they start backing violations of 2nd Amendment rights now ?? If so, I may have to join!!! :o
-
Oooobama has armed security right?
What about SCOTUS? I assume they have something akin to Secret Service.
Hypocritical much?
I personally got to meet Justice Clarence Thomas last year when he came to Omaha . He was escorted by the U.S. Marshalls. If there were any others then I didn't see them and probably wouldn't.
-
This was a good day for gun owners. Still it's just the beginning. The brady buch won't stop till they get what they want. I'm sending the NRA the payment for mt EPL Lifetime membership. I still have over 300 dollars to go. If I had the cash I'd pay it in full now.
-
This was a good day for gun owners. Still it's just the beginning. The brady buch won't stop till they get what they want. I'm sending the NRA the payment for mt EPL Lifetime membership. I still have over 300 dollars to go. If I had the cash I'd pay it in full now.
As someone on my military board said, is it? 4 justices were willing to shitcan a right we've had since the founding of this country. We were 1 away. It SHOULD have been 9-0. I will have no reservations about voting for McCain now. None, whatsoever.
-
Also, I must wonder if the ACLU will change their tune, now that the 2nd Amendment has been clarified and affirmed as an individual right??
Will they start backing violations of 2nd Amendment rights now ?? If so, I may have to join!!! :o
I wouldn't hold my breath on it
-
Any of you die-hard conservatives thinking about sitting out this election, please remember that we almost lost the second amendment. It was saved by one vote. This election matters!
:hammer:
-
Any of you die-hard conservatives thinking about sitting out this election, please remember that we almost lost the second amendment. It was saved by one vote. This election matters!
:hammer:
Very much agree. Emphasis on very.
-
Any of you die-hard conservatives thinking about sitting out this election, please remember that we almost lost the second amendment. It was saved by one vote. This election matters!
:hammer:
I've said that all along. Its a virtual certainly that there will be openings among the most liberal ones. the donkeys cannot be allowed to fill them.
-
Some passages from the written opinion of Justice Scalia:
In any event, the meaning of "bear arms" that petitioners and Justice Stevens propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby "bear arms" connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the hybrid definition. Giving "bear Arms" its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war--an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed. . . . Worse still, the phrase "keep and bear Arms" would be incoherent. The word "Arms" would have two different meanings at once: "weapons" (as the object of "keep") and (as the object of "bear") one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying "He filled and kicked the bucket" to mean "He filled the bucket and died." Grotesque.
Liberal-first, American somewhere way, way, way down the list Stephen Breyer wrote:
The argument about method, however, is by far the less important argument surrounding today's decision. Far more important are the unfortunate consequences that today's decision is likely to spawn. Not least of these, as I have said, is the fact that the decision threatens to throw into doubt the constitutionality of gun laws throughout the United States. I can find no sound legal basis for launching the courts on so formidable and potentially dangerous a mission. In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas.
Justice Scalia continues:
He (Breyer) criticizes us for declining to establish a level of scrutiny for evaluating Second Amendment restrictions. He proposes, explicitly at least, none of the traditionally expressed levels (strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, rational basis), but rather a judge-empowering "interest-balancing inquiry" that "asks whether the statute burdens a protected interest in a way or to an extent that is out of proportion to the statute's salutary effects upon other important governmental interests." . . .. After an exhaustive discussion of the arguments for and against gun control, Justice Breyer arrives at his interest-balanced answer: because handgun violence is a problem, because the law is limited to an urban area, and because there were somewhat similar restrictions in the founding period (a false proposition that we have already discussed), the interest-balancing inquiry results in the constitutionality of the handgun ban. QED.
We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding "interest-balancing" approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government--even the Third Branch of Government--the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges' assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all.
.
-
The silliest thing I heard from a liberal today was through an outrage rant about how people would now be killing all kinds of bears in order to keep and mount their arms. He was kidding. I hope.
-
This was a good day for gun owners. Still it's just the beginning. The brady buch won't stop till they get what they want. I'm sending the NRA the payment for mt EPL Lifetime membership. I still have over 300 dollars to go. If I had the cash I'd pay it in full now.
As someone on my military board said, is it? 4 justices were willing to shitcan a right we've had since the founding of this country. We were 1 away. It SHOULD have been 9-0. I will have no reservations about voting for McCain now. None, whatsoever.
Welcome to the dark side, Kev. Good to have you here. :evillaugh:
-
Any of you die-hard conservatives thinking about sitting out this election, please remember that we almost lost the second amendment. It was saved by one vote. This election matters!
:hammer:
You know how much it's a pain in the ass for us hardcore VRWC card carrying members to vote for Juan McLame? Granted, he'd be good on justices, but then again when we had a "moderate Republican" (read George H.W. Bush) we got Souter. But Obama would have the court filled with 9 Ginsburgs, so it is a really pain.
Echoed here ... even Hellen Keller would agree the court's decision should have been 9-0.
-
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
But Old Bush also appointed Clarence Thomas, a 50-50 shot is better than none at all.
Although he has been willing to describe his general views on this topic, Obama has sidestepped the question of whether the ban in the nation's capital runs afoul of the Second Amendment.
Asked by ABC News' Charlie Gibson if he considers the D.C. law to be consistent with an individual's right to bear arms at ABC's April 16, 2008, debate in Philadelphia, Obama said, "Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven't listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence."
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., by contrast, has been forthcoming when it comes to the D.C. gun law.
He signed an amicus brief in the District of Columbia v. Heller case, signaling not only his belief in the Second Amendment but also his view that the DC gun ban is incompatible with it.
:whatever:
-
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
But Old Bush also appointed Clarence Thomas, a 50-50 shot is better than none at all.
Although he has been willing to describe his general views on this topic, Obama has sidestepped the question of whether the ban in the nation's capital runs afoul of the Second Amendment.
Asked by ABC News' Charlie Gibson if he considers the D.C. law to be consistent with an individual's right to bear arms at ABC's April 16, 2008, debate in Philadelphia, Obama said, "Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven't listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence."
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., by contrast, has been forthcoming when it comes to the D.C. gun law.
He signed an amicus brief in the District of Columbia v. Heller case, signaling not only his belief in the Second Amendment but also his view that the DC gun ban is incompatible with it.
:whatever:
Oh yeah, I remember that riff raff back when I was in 7th grade. Anita Hill and all... but anyways, since the SCOTUS is now recently flagrantly and very publicly trying to throw the Constitution to the wind, it is time ti get some more judges on that bench that abide by the Framer's Constitution, not the one's the libs try to read that they think James Madison wrote "The right to abortion at any age" or whatever in invisible ink. I will, albeit holding my nose the whole time, voting for McCain this election.
-
Any of you die-hard conservatives thinking about sitting out this election, please remember that we almost lost the second amendment. It was saved by one vote. This election matters!
:hammer:
The votes for Congress matter a hell of a lot more than the vote for Pres. this year.
-
Any of you die-hard conservatives thinking about sitting out this election, please remember that we almost lost the second amendment. It was saved by one vote. This election matters!
:hammer:
The votes for Congress matter a hell of a lot more than the vote for Pres. this year.
most EXCELLENT point
-
My concern is the fact that the GOP has deserted their base. Far too many RINOs infest the Republican Party in today's world.
-
My concern is the fact that the GOP has deserted their base. Far too many RINOs infest the Republican Party in today's world.
unfortunately the mushy middle has widened and since you cannot win without gaining the majority of it what choice do they have ?
this is the downside of a two party system which it guaranteed by legislation making 3rd parties overly challenged.
-
This was a good day for gun owners. Still it's just the beginning. The brady buch won't stop till they get what they want. I'm sending the NRA the payment for mt EPL Lifetime membership. I still have over 300 dollars to go. If I had the cash I'd pay it in full now.
As someone on my military board said, is it? 4 justices were willing to shitcan a right we've had since the founding of this country. We were 1 away. It SHOULD have been 9-0. I will have no reservations about voting for McCain now. None, whatsoever.
Even knowing that John McCain voted to affirm at least 3 of those 4 when they were nominated to the Bench?
-
Even knowing that John McCain voted to affirm at least 3 of those 4 when they were nominated to the Bench?
Yes.
-
Any of you die-hard conservatives thinking about sitting out this election, please remember that we almost lost the second amendment. It was saved by one vote. This election matters!
:hammer:
The second amendment only affirms what is already a God-Given right of free men. It did not grant that right, and if it had been struck down by the Commissars in black robes yesterday, that right wouldn't have been revoked.
People, we have been the victims of a major mind-**** over the past 100 years or so, and you and I have to wake the **** up and realize that unless we have committed a criminal act, YOU AND I DON'T ANSWER TO OUR GOVERNMENT. Our rights do not originate with our government, they cannot be legally revoked by our government, and to so much as grant the argument to the contrary is to cede authority over your life to your government that it is not entitled to and it damned sure hasn't demonstrated competence to wield.
(Sorry for the rant guys. I'm re-reading Liberal Fascism lately, and it's got me on something of a hair trigger.)
-
This was a good day for gun owners. Still it's just the beginning. The brady buch won't stop till they get what they want. I'm sending the NRA the payment for mt EPL Lifetime membership. I still have over 300 dollars to go. If I had the cash I'd pay it in full now.
As someone on my military board said, is it? 4 justices were willing to shitcan a right we've had since the founding of this country. We were 1 away. It SHOULD have been 9-0. I will have no reservations about voting for McCain now. None, whatsoever.
Even knowing that John McCain voted to affirm at least 3 of those 4 when they were nominated to the Bench?
Oh, absolutely! Do you think it would be an intelligent thing to do - to not vote for McCain because he voted to confirm 3 of those 4? Do you think denying McCain your vote would up your chances of getting better justices? Do you think it would be wise to give up all hope or go with a 50/50 chance of survival?
At this stage of the election game it makes no sense at all to pretend punishing McCain by withholding votes will somehow improve your chances of defeating the known promises of the democrat party.
-
This was a good day for gun owners. Still it's just the beginning. The brady buch won't stop till they get what they want. I'm sending the NRA the payment for mt EPL Lifetime membership. I still have over 300 dollars to go. If I had the cash I'd pay it in full now.
As someone on my military board said, is it? 4 justices were willing to shitcan a right we've had since the founding of this country. We were 1 away. It SHOULD have been 9-0. I will have no reservations about voting for McCain now. None, whatsoever.
Even knowing that John McCain voted to affirm at least 3 of those 4 when they were nominated to the Bench?
Oh, absolutely! Do you think it would be an intelligent thing to do - to not vote for McCain because he voted to confirm 3 of those 4? Do you think denying McCain your vote would up your chances of getting better justices? Do you think it would be wise to give up all hope or go with a 50/50 chance of survival?
At this stage of the election game it makes no sense at all to pretend punishing McCain by withholding votes will somehow improve your chances of defeating the known promises of the democrat party.
I think it calls into question his veracity when it comes to the claim he's made that he would appoint "strict constructionists" to the Bench. Is he using the same fuzzy definition of "strict constructionist" that he's using to define himself as a "conservative"?
As a secondary point to consider, so what if he does nominate strict constructionists to the USSC? They still have to be approved by a senate that is likely to be the most liberal since after the 1982 mid-term elections. What the hell gives you the impression that even if McLame won the election in a Reagan-esque landslide, Harry Reid and Co. will just acquiesce to the man's mandate and approve his nominations with nary a whimper? The democrat senate will chase any strict constructionist nominees all the way out of the ****ing District with torches and pitchforks as heretics to their religious worship of political power, and in order to "get something done", McLame will be faced with bending over and grabbing the ****ing ankles and sending up "compromise" nominees. Considering that he's already quite comfortable making such "reaches across the ****ing aisle", I don't think the senate will have to twist his arms too hard. That means more David Souters, Anthony Kennedys and their kind.
Face it guys, we're ****ed seven ways from Sunday no matter which candidate we elect come November.
-
We got Alito and Roberts. The numbers count. We have to come out in force come November. It's not just about POTUS. But if we throw our hands up and say, "well he'll give us more Souters so what's the point?" then it's most certainly going to happen. I'd rather go down fighting. At least then I will know everyone tried, everyone voted, we did what we could, etc..
I for one, don't think we're "f*cked" yet. Its a long, long, long time until November.
-
I think it calls into question his veracity when it comes to the claim he's made that he would appoint "strict constructionists" to the Bench. Is he using the same fuzzy definition of "strict constructionist" that he's using to define himself as a "conservative"?
John McCain did exactly what he should have done as a Senator. Advise and consent. There was no legal or justifiable reason to keep those clowns off the bench and no, I don't agree with their politics, isn't a reason. That's the problem with the fools in the Senate now. They think it's their right and responsibility to nominate and appoint justices. It's not. That is the President's job.
-
I think it calls into question his veracity when it comes to the claim he's made that he would appoint "strict constructionists" to the Bench. Is he using the same fuzzy definition of "strict constructionist" that he's using to define himself as a "conservative"?
John McCain did exactly what he should have done as a Senator. Advise and consent. There was no legal or justifiable reason to keep those clowns off the bench and no, I don't agree with their politics, isn't a reason. That's the problem with the fools in the Senate now. They think it's their right and responsibility to nominate and appoint justices. It's not. That is the President's job.
This case is a prime example of why they should have been kept off the bench in the first place. One of the cornerstone tenets of the Constitution they took an oath to uphold, and these four turds couldn't see past their own personal political agendas. If I knew who to take it to, I'd be on the horn with my congress-shits right now, twisting their arms for impeachment proceedings against these justices. And to think that their history prior to their nomination to the USSC wouldn't show this kind of disregard for the Constitution in their decisions is farsical at best. It was the president at the time's job to nominate justices who would uphold the Constitution. It was the responsibility of the 100 Senators to review that nominee to verify that they would uphold the Constitution, and then approve or dis-approve the nomination based on that criterion. Senator McCain abbrogated his responsibility to the Constitution as a Senator where these justices are concerned, and we're supposed to overlook that based on a politician's promise that he would fulfill as President the same responsibility he abbrogated as a Senator?
You can keep digging if you like, but I really don't think we're gonna find a pony underneath that pile of horseshit.
-
I think it calls into question his veracity when it comes to the claim he's made that he would appoint "strict constructionists" to the Bench. Is he using the same fuzzy definition of "strict constructionist" that he's using to define himself as a "conservative"?
John McCain did exactly what he should have done as a Senator. Advise and consent. There was no legal or justifiable reason to keep those clowns off the bench and no, I don't agree with their politics, isn't a reason. That's the problem with the fools in the Senate now. They think it's their right and responsibility to nominate and appoint justices. It's not. That is the President's job.
Agreed.
-
This was a good day for gun owners. Still it's just the beginning. The brady buch won't stop till they get what they want. I'm sending the NRA the payment for mt EPL Lifetime membership. I still have over 300 dollars to go. If I had the cash I'd pay it in full now.
As someone on my military board said, is it? 4 justices were willing to shitcan a right we've had since the founding of this country. We were 1 away. It SHOULD have been 9-0. I will have no reservations about voting for McCain now. None, whatsoever.
Even knowing that John McCain voted to affirm at least 3 of those 4 when they were nominated to the Bench?
Oh, absolutely! Do you think it would be an intelligent thing to do - to not vote for McCain because he voted to confirm 3 of those 4? Do you think denying McCain your vote would up your chances of getting better justices? Do you think it would be wise to give up all hope or go with a 50/50 chance of survival?
At this stage of the election game it makes no sense at all to pretend punishing McCain by withholding votes will somehow improve your chances of defeating the known promises of the democrat party.
I think it calls into question his veracity when it comes to the claim he's made that he would appoint "strict constructionists" to the Bench. Is he using the same fuzzy definition of "strict constructionist" that he's using to define himself as a "conservative"?
As a secondary point to consider, so what if he does nominate strict constructionists to the USSC? They still have to be approved by a senate that is likely to be the most liberal since after the 1982 mid-term elections. What the hell gives you the impression that even if McLame won the election in a Reagan-esque landslide, Harry Reid and Co. will just acquiesce to the man's mandate and approve his nominations with nary a whimper? The democrat senate will chase any strict constructionist nominees all the way out of the ****ing District with torches and pitchforks as heretics to their religious worship of political power, and in order to "get something done", McLame will be faced with bending over and grabbing the ****ing ankles and sending up "compromise" nominees. Considering that he's already quite comfortable making such "reaches across the ****ing aisle", I don't think the senate will have to twist his arms too hard. That means more David Souters, Anthony Kennedys and their kind.
Face it guys, we're ****ed seven ways from Sunday no matter which candidate we elect come November.
Your answers are yes, yes, and yes. Interesting.
-
Fine Lord Undies, I'll answer your questions three directly.
Do you think it would be an intelligent thing to do - to not vote for McCain because he voted to confirm 3 of those 4?
Yes. I judge his candidacy by his track record, not by what the man promises. Voting to confirm the appointment of 3 of the 4 Constitutional illiterates on the bench of the Supreme Court is not the track record of someone I want working to preserve, protect and defend MY Constitution.
Do you think denying McCain your vote would up your chances of getting better justices?
Can you show me how GIVING Juan McLame my vote would improve my chances of getting better justices? I've already got Kennedy, Souter, Ginsberg and Brier legislating from the bench because this man - among many others, admittedly - abbrogated his responsibilities under the Constitution. What evidence do you have that electing him to the Chief executive's position is gonna be the "Come to Jesus" moment he's needed to straighten up and fly right?
Like I said, we're equally ****ed whether Juan or the BarrackStar is sitting in the Oval orifice come January 20th. I don't see how we're any less ****ed driving off the damned cliff at 60mph as opposed to 110mph.
Do you think it would be wise to give up all hope or go with a 50/50 chance of survival?
If you're looking to government for your hope, you're even more screwed than you think. I look to myself and my God for survival, and given the choice, I don't even bother God with such minutiae. I will vote for whomever demonstrates to me the greatest grasp of the Constitution, and the best understanding that the best of America isn't in Washington DC, and doesn't issue forth from Government like water from the rock. I will maintain my "disaster supplies" against the day that they'll be needed. I'll continue to teach my children correct principles - and de-program the indoctrination they get at public school each night. And when the government of this Country goes too damned far, and the "social fabric" decends into chaos, I'm ready to batten down the hatches and protect my family until it's over.
-
Fine Lord Undies, I'll answer your questions three directly.
Do you think it would be an intelligent thing to do - to not vote for McCain because he voted to confirm 3 of those 4?
Yes. I judge his candidacy by his track record, not by what the man promises. Voting to confirm the appointment of 3 of the 4 Constitutional illiterates on the bench of the Supreme Court is not the track record of someone I want working to preserve, protect and defend MY Constitution.
You say this knowing the alternative is 100% against everything you say you want to preserve. That doesn't make sense. You are compromising yourself and your stated beliefs in order to make a point?
You will have two choices in November. Obama and McCain. You are choosing Obama, an known Marxist, in an attempt to spite McCain because he has not followed your ideas of a perfect Republican candidate. I'm floored by your thinking.
We know McCain is against the legal murder of unborn babies. We know McCain is committed to defending our nation against the greatest enemy and threats we have ever endured. We know his nomination for the Supreme Court will be more conservative than anyone Obama will consider, but yet you choose Obama. Interesting, to say the least.
Do you think denying McCain your vote would up your chances of getting better justices?
Can you show me how GIVING Juan McLame my vote would improve my chances of getting better justices? I've already got Kennedy, Souter, Ginsberg and Brier legislating from the bench because this man - among many others, admittedly - abrogated his responsibilities under the Constitution. What evidence do you have that electing him to the Chief executive's position is gonna be the "Come to Jesus" moment he's needed to straighten up and fly right?
See above. You have two choices in November. One (Obama) stands for everything you claim to detest, with a senate record to back it up, and the other (McCain) with real positive credentials in the area of national defense and a respect for individual life.
Like I said, we're equally ****ed whether Juan or the BarrackStar is sitting in the Oval orifice come January 20th. I don't see how we're any less ****ed driving off the damned cliff at 60mph as opposed to 110mph.
You don't see it, but that doesn't mean there isn't a difference. It just means you don't have a clear picture. These two candidates are not the same at all. You should educate yourself before you decide to deny your best chance to stand by your beliefs while rewarding a candidate who will without a doubt stand against you.
Do you think it would be wise to give up all hope or go with a 50/50 chance of survival?
If you're looking to government for your hope, you're even more screwed than you think. I look to myself and my God for survival, and given the choice, I don't even bother God with such minutiae. I will vote for whomever demonstrates to me the greatest grasp of the Constitution, and the best understanding that the best of America isn't in Washington DC, and doesn't issue forth from Government like water from the rock. I will maintain my "disaster supplies" against the day that they'll be needed. I'll continue to teach my children correct principles - and de-program the indoctrination they get at public school each night. And when the government of this Country goes too damned far, and the "social fabric" decends into chaos, I'm ready to batten down the hatches and protect my family until it's over.
I don't look to government for anything, but there are realities neither you nor I can deny. Whether you admit it or not, who we seat in our nation's chairs of power makes a difference. If yesterday didn't teach you as much, then maybe you deserve a Barak Obama. I know I don't.
-
Fine Lord Undies, I'll answer your questions three directly.
Do you think it would be an intelligent thing to do - to not vote for McCain because he voted to confirm 3 of those 4?
Yes. I judge his candidacy by his track record, not by what the man promises. Voting to confirm the appointment of 3 of the 4 Constitutional illiterates on the bench of the Supreme Court is not the track record of someone I want working to preserve, protect and defend MY Constitution.
You say this knowing the alternative is 100% against everything you say you want to preserve. That doesn't make sense. You are compromising yourself and your stated beliefs in order to make a point?
You will have two choices in November. Obama and McCain. You are choosing Obama, an known Marxist, in an attempt to spite McCain because he has not followed your ideas of a perfect Republican candidate. I'm floored by your thinking.
We know McCain is against the legal murder of unborn babies. We know McCain is committed to defending our nation against the greatest enemy and threats we have ever endured. We know his nomination for the Supreme Court will be more conservative than anyone Obama will consider, but yet you choose Obama. Interesting, to say the least.
Do you think denying McCain your vote would up your chances of getting better justices?
Can you show me how GIVING Juan McLame my vote would improve my chances of getting better justices? I've already got Kennedy, Souter, Ginsberg and Brier legislating from the bench because this man - among many others, admittedly - abrogated his responsibilities under the Constitution. What evidence do you have that electing him to the Chief executive's position is gonna be the "Come to Jesus" moment he's needed to straighten up and fly right?
See above. You have two choices in November. One (Obama) stands for everything you claim to detest, with a senate record to back it up, and the other (McCain) with real positive credentials in the area of national defense and a respect for individual life.
Like I said, we're equally ****ed whether Juan or the BarrackStar is sitting in the Oval orifice come January 20th. I don't see how we're any less ****ed driving off the damned cliff at 60mph as opposed to 110mph.
You don't see it, but that doesn't mean there isn't a difference. It just means you don't have a clear picture. These two candidates are not the same at all. You should educate yourself before you decide to deny your best chance to stand by your beliefs while rewarding a candidate who will without a doubt stand against you.
Do you think it would be wise to give up all hope or go with a 50/50 chance of survival?
If you're looking to government for your hope, you're even more screwed than you think. I look to myself and my God for survival, and given the choice, I don't even bother God with such minutiae. I will vote for whomever demonstrates to me the greatest grasp of the Constitution, and the best understanding that the best of America isn't in Washington DC, and doesn't issue forth from Government like water from the rock. I will maintain my "disaster supplies" against the day that they'll be needed. I'll continue to teach my children correct principles - and de-program the indoctrination they get at public school each night. And when the government of this Country goes too damned far, and the "social fabric" decends into chaos, I'm ready to batten down the hatches and protect my family until it's over.
I don't look to government for anything, but there are realities neither you nor I can deny. Whether you admit it or not, who we seat in our nation's chairs of power makes a difference. If yesterday didn't teach you as much, then maybe you deserve a Barak Obama. I know I don't.
:clap: :clap: :clap:
:bow2:
-
All I know is that at the beginning of this election cycle, I swore that I was not going to cast my vote for evil, even the lesser evil.
My yardstick for measuring the candidates by has to be the Constitution they'll be sworn to protect and defend, and using that yardstick to take the measure of McCain, I find him lacking. His record shows disdain for the individual rights of his countrymen (McCain/Feingold), a lack of regard for the rule of law (McCain/Kennedy), and a man in love with the trappings of power, with no love for the responsibilities of his office. His ardent stance in favor of the McCain/Lieberman global warming debacle is among the most fascist (remember, I'm in the middle of re-reading Liberal Fascism) anti-American positions you'll find from any of this season's candidates - including Hitlery and Borat's support of nationalizing the health care system.
The man can - and will - say whatever he has to to try to win back the conservative base, but his track record shows him to be just another lying sack of shit when it comes to delivering to the conservatives, and as one who got sick and tired of beating my head against a brick wall when I was his constituent (I lived in Arizona for 10 years), he will not get my vote again.
-
In consideration of the votes of the four dissenting members of the court yesterday, one must also look with some depth into the two (now liberal) members appointed by Republican presidents, and when you review their judicial backgrounds before appointment to SCOTUS, you will find that, in large part, these two DID have "constructionist" records in their decisions on lower courts from whence they came.........they became "liberals" after they served on the high court for a number of years.
I have heard it discussed by students of the Supreme Court that the liberal social environment in DC has an unfortunate habit of being somewhat ideologically corrosive, and if an individual justice is steeped in it long enough, and allows these factors to weigh on their opinions, this type of ideological change can occur.
I therefore, cannot blame the Republican presidents who appointed these justices to the bench, as they made their selection based on the best information that they had at the time......what happens after that.....well, just happens........there are no guarantees.
Whether or not John McCain will appoint justices in the mold of Antonin Scalia is unknown, and if he appoints one or two, it is also unknown whether the new justice will "stay" that way. One must also consider that the justices that are hanging on by their fingernails are all of the liberals on the court, so if we end up with a liberal in the White House the appointees are not likely to change the complexion of the court to any great extent. I would also posit that there is historical precedent for a "liberal" justice to swing the other way as well, so all of these factors pretty much become a strictly academic exercise. I doubt that even Obama can find a more liberal judge than Ginsberg, or Souter
As an aside, those of us who are staunch supporters of the 2nd Amendment owe a great debt of gratitude to an individual whose name has not surfaced in the press at all, and is unlikely to do so. This person is Robert Levy, with the Cato Institute, who single-handedly, out of his own pocket, funded the legal fight in Heller vs DC. Hats off to Mr. Levy, the nation owes you thanks........BTW, I'm told that ironically, Mr. Levy does not even own a gun......
doc
-
Even knowing that John McCain voted to affirm at least 3 of those 4 when they were nominated to the Bench?
it wasn't until recently (2001 till present) that partisan politics came into play with this. if they had the bar's blessing, it was largely rubber stamp.
-
Even knowing that John McCain voted to affirm at least 3 of those 4 when they were nominated to the Bench?
it wasn't until recently (2001 till present) that partisan politics came into play with this. if they had the bar's blessing, it was largely rubber stamp.
Then how do you explain Robert Bork? Or Clarence Thomas?
-
I have heard it discussed by students of the Supreme Court that the liberal social environment in DC has an unfortunate habit of being somewhat ideologically corrosive, and if an individual justice is steeped in it long enough, and allows these factors to weigh on their opinions, this type of ideological change can occur.
I appreciate you expressing your opinion on these matters, but wanted to highlight this point you made because I was thinking about it today. When you've got a culture built around the need to stay afloat by taking from citizens via taxes in order to redistribute it to where you need in order to support your culture, it's a receipe for disaster. Now throw judges into that mix who want to be part of the social scene of the community in which they live and naturally they're going to be influenced. In the Roman Empire, Rome was corrupt. In the Greek Empire, Athens was corrupt. It's nothing new.
So when you hear peole say "The problem is DC and the culture that surrounds it," it's a fact, a legitimate grievance, and well supported by history.
.
-
I didn't read the entire thread, so forgive me if this point was already brought up...but I heard the opponents of this decision stated they can still keep guns out of D.C. by using zoning laws to keep them out. Don't know if that is a real option or not but if so, the libtards have sunk to a new low.
-
I have heard it discussed by students of the Supreme Court that the liberal social environment in DC has an unfortunate habit of being somewhat ideologically corrosive, and if an individual justice is steeped in it long enough, and allows these factors to weigh on their opinions, this type of ideological change can occur.
I appreciate you expressing your opinion on these matters, but wanted to highlight this point you made because I was thinking about it today. When you've got a culture built around the need to stay afloat by taking from citizens via taxes in order to redistribute it to where you need in order to support your culture, it's a receipe for disaster. Now throw judges into that mix who want to be part of the social scene of the community in which they live and naturally they're going to be influenced. In the Roman Empire, Rome was corrupt. In the Greek Empire, Athens was corrupt. It's nothing new.
So when you hear peole say "The problem is DC and the culture that surrounds it," it's a fact, a legitimate grievance, and well supported by history.
.
point.well.spoken.
H5
-
it wasn't until recently (2001 till present) that partisan politics came into play with this. if they had the bar's blessing, it was largely rubber stamp.
When the trouble and obfuscation began is when President Bush decided not to listen to the recommendations of the very Liberal ABA.
And seeing as how the Democrats in Congress are in the pocket of the Bar Assoc...they were duty bound at that point to block damn near every nomination the President sent up...even if they had the highest rating the Bar gives out to Judges.
Then how do you explain Robert Bork? Or Clarence Thomas?
They were true Conservatives not RINO's or Libs pretending to be Conservative (see O'Connor and Souter)...therefore they fell victim to the Liberal Attack Dogs of the Democrat party and the MSM.
Bork's name is now synonymous with getting a raw deal and Thomas had his name and reputation forever sullied and barely made it through confirmation.
-
Perhaps it's time to reconsider just exactly for whom we are voting. This election is VERY reminiscent of the 1996(?) election in MN. We had Skip Humphrey, a devout liberal; Norm Coleman, a RINO (a Dem conveniently turned "conservative" for that election); and Jesse Ventura, a Libertarian. The odds were against Jesse and he WON!!! It was a movement against the status quo. While Jesse was a GREAT Governor, he did accomplish some good things. His bigger problem is that he let his alligator mouth get him in trouble with folks. While he made me laugh and he was usually RIGHT, he tended to offend a lot of the folks. There ARE other alternatives out there besides Barfstar or McLame.
-
Perhaps it's time to reconsider just exactly for whom we are voting. This election is VERY reminiscent of the 1996(?) election in MN. We had Skip Humphrey, a devout liberal; Norm Coleman, a RINO (a Dem conveniently turned "conservative" for that election); and Jesse Ventura, a Libertarian. The odds were against Jesse and he WON!!! It was a movement against the status quo. While Jesse was a GREAT Governor, he did accomplish some good things. His bigger problem is that he let his alligator mouth get him in trouble with folks. While he made me laugh and he was usually RIGHT, he tended to offend a lot of the folks. There ARE other alternatives out there besides Barfstar or McLame.
Those 3rd Party candidates can do what the other two did, work their f'n way up through mayor's elections, governor's election, Congressional elections, etc. You don't f'n start at the Damn top. ANY vote for a 3rd party is a vote for NOBama. I did that shit twice with "Ears". Never again.
-
Any of you die-hard conservatives thinking about sitting out this election, please remember that we almost lost the second amendment. It was saved by one vote. This election matters!
:hammer:
The second amendment only affirms what is already a God-Given right of free men. It did not grant that right, and if it had been struck down by the Commissars in black robes yesterday, that right wouldn't have been revoked.
People, we have been the victims of a major mind-**** over the past 100 years or so, and you and I have to wake the **** up and realize that unless we have committed a criminal act, YOU AND I DON'T ANSWER TO OUR GOVERNMENT. Our rights do not originate with our government, they cannot be legally revoked by our government, and to so much as grant the argument to the contrary is to cede authority over your life to your government that it is not entitled to and it damned sure hasn't demonstrated competence to wield.
(Sorry for the rant guys. I'm re-reading Liberal Fascism lately, and it's got me on something of a hair trigger.)
You are absolutely correct.
-
Perhaps it's time to reconsider just exactly for whom we are voting. This election is VERY reminiscent of the 1996(?) election in MN. We had Skip Humphrey, a devout liberal; Norm Coleman, a RINO (a Dem conveniently turned "conservative" for that election); and Jesse Ventura, a Libertarian. The odds were against Jesse and he WON!!! It was a movement against the status quo. While Jesse was a GREAT Governor, he did accomplish some good things. His bigger problem is that he let his alligator mouth get him in trouble with folks. While he made me laugh and he was usually RIGHT, he tended to offend a lot of the folks. There ARE other alternatives out there besides Barfstar or McLame.
Those 3rd Party candidates can do what the other two did, work their f'n way up through mayor's elections, governor's election, Congressional elections, etc. You don't f'n start at the Damn top. ANY vote for a 3rd party is a vote for NOBama. I did that shit twice with "Ears". Never again.
Nah, I say all of you guys should vote Barr. It'll send a message to McCain & the GOP.
:evillaugh:
-
Those 3rd Party candidates can do what the other two did, work their f'n way up through mayor's elections, governor's election, Congressional elections, etc. You don't f'n start at the Damn top. ANY vote for a 3rd party is a vote for NOBama. I did that shit twice with "Ears". Never again.
Nah, I say all of you guys should vote Barr. It'll send a message to McCain & the GOP.
:evillaugh:
....and to our military, our economy, our enemies, our healthcare professionals, and our job creators. Yeah, I'm thinking no. Barack with a liberal Congress will be Carter 10-fold. ...and I don't think I have to educate anyone on what THAT f'n peanut farmer did. :whatever:
-
This was a good day for gun owners. Still it's just the beginning. The brady buch won't stop till they get what they want. I'm sending the NRA the payment for mt EPL Lifetime membership. I still have over 300 dollars to go. If I had the cash I'd pay it in full now.
As someone on my military board said, is it? 4 justices were willing to shitcan a right we've had since the founding of this country. We were 1 away. It SHOULD have been 9-0. I will have no reservations about voting for McCain now. None, whatsoever.
Even knowing that John McCain voted to affirm at least 3 of those 4 when they were nominated to the Bench?
Oh, absolutely! Do you think it would be an intelligent thing to do - to not vote for McCain because he voted to confirm 3 of those 4? Do you think denying McCain your vote would up your chances of getting better justices? Do you think it would be wise to give up all hope or go with a 50/50 chance of survival?
At this stage of the election game it makes no sense at all to pretend punishing McCain by withholding votes will somehow improve your chances of defeating the known promises of the democrat party.
I think it calls into question his veracity when it comes to the claim he's made that he would appoint "strict constructionists" to the Bench. Is he using the same fuzzy definition of "strict constructionist" that he's using to define himself as a "conservative"?
As a secondary point to consider, so what if he does nominate strict constructionists to the USSC? They still have to be approved by a senate that is likely to be the most liberal since after the 1982 mid-term elections. What the hell gives you the impression that even if McLame won the election in a Reagan-esque landslide, Harry Reid and Co. will just acquiesce to the man's mandate and approve his nominations with nary a whimper? The democrat senate will chase any strict constructionist nominees all the way out of the ******* District with torches and pitchforks as heretics to their religious worship of political power, and in order to "get something done", McLame will be faced with bending over and grabbing the ******* ankles and sending up "compromise" nominees. Considering that he's already quite comfortable making such "reaches across the ******* aisle", I don't think the senate will have to twist his arms too hard. That means more David Souters, Anthony Kennedys and their kind.
Face it guys, we're ****ed seven ways from Sunday no matter which candidate we elect come November.
I've been saying that ever since the guy won the nomination. The man has done nothing to convince me that he will indeed nominate strict constructionist justices. He has a recent history of "reaching across the aisle" that worries me greatly.
-
We're at war with some really dangerous f'n people, and McCain is:
(http://logo.cafepress.com/3/3190793.jpg)
battle tested.
Does he mean he wants to keep us in Iraq for 100 years? **** NO! However, any soldier knows, you stay until the job is finished or you shouldn't have gone at all. The NVA were about a week away from giving up before the Damn liberals coerced us into pulling out.
-
I've been saying that ever since the guy won the nomination. The man has done nothing to convince me that he will indeed nominate strict constructionist justices. He has a recent history of "reaching across the aisle" that worries me greatly.
Fine, vote for Barr, or whomever. Be sure to scan your "Thank You" letter from Obama and post it here. :whatever:
-
Those 3rd Party candidates can do what the other two did, work their f'n way up through mayor's elections, governor's election, Congressional elections, etc. You don't f'n start at the Damn top. ANY vote for a 3rd party is a vote for NOBama. I did that shit twice with "Ears". Never again.
Nah, I say all of you guys should vote Barr. It'll send a message to McCain & the GOP.
:evillaugh:
....and to our military, our economy, our enemies, our healthcare professionals, and our job creators. Yeah, I'm thinking no. Barack with a liberal Congress will be Carter 10-fold. ...and I don't think I have to educate anyone on what THAT f'n peanut farmer did. :whatever:
Oh honey, you know I'm just messing with you. :p
-
Oh honey, you know I'm just messing with you. :p
Mia, you're not the one that concerns me. You're a liberal. You voting for Obama, believe it or not, doesn't bother me. What BOTHERS me is people saying they won't vote for McCain because he doesn't fit into their exact mold they view as a Conservative. I've done that shit....TWICE. Got Clinton, BOTH Damn TIMES.
-
Fine Lord Undies, I'll answer your questions three directly.
Do you think it would be an intelligent thing to do - to not vote for McCain because he voted to confirm 3 of those 4?
Yes. I judge his candidacy by his track record, not by what the man promises. Voting to confirm the appointment of 3 of the 4 Constitutional illiterates on the bench of the Supreme Court is not the track record of someone I want working to preserve, protect and defend MY Constitution.
Do you think denying McCain your vote would up your chances of getting better justices?
Can you show me how GIVING Juan McLame my vote would improve my chances of getting better justices? I've already got Kennedy, Souter, Ginsberg and Brier legislating from the bench because this man - among many others, admittedly - abbrogated his responsibilities under the Constitution. What evidence do you have that electing him to the Chief executive's position is gonna be the "Come to Jesus" moment he's needed to straighten up and fly right?
Like I said, we're equally ****ed whether Juan or the BarrackStar is sitting in the Oval orifice come January 20th. I don't see how we're any less ****ed driving off the damned cliff at 60mph as opposed to 110mph.
Do you think it would be wise to give up all hope or go with a 50/50 chance of survival?
If you're looking to government for your hope, you're even more screwed than you think. I look to myself and my God for survival, and given the choice, I don't even bother God with such minutiae. I will vote for whomever demonstrates to me the greatest grasp of the Constitution, and the best understanding that the best of America isn't in Washington DC, and doesn't issue forth from Government like water from the rock. I will maintain my "disaster supplies" against the day that they'll be needed. I'll continue to teach my children correct principles - and de-program the indoctrination they get at public school each night. And when the government of this Country goes too damned far, and the "social fabric" decends into chaos, I'm ready to batten down the hatches and protect my family until it's over.
I may just have to adopt you. Or you can adopt me. Are you sure we aren't twins?
You sure post like I think on this issue.
:cheersmate:
-
You people that say you're conservative, and want someone to believe EXACTLY as you believe, well, you need to get off your lazy asses and run yourself. I have NEVER agreed with ANY candidate 100%.
-
Oh honey, you know I'm just messing with you. :p
Mia, you're not the one that concerns me. You're a liberal. You voting for Obama, believe it or not, doesn't bother me. What BOTHERS me is people saying they won't vote for McCain because he doesn't fit into their exact mold they view as a Conservative. I've done that shit....TWICE. Got Clinton, BOTH Damn TIMES.
I agree with you (in opposite of course). Obama is the opposite of McCain. I can't see how a conservative would justify voting 3rd party when the election is sure to be close and give the win to Obama. It doesn't make sense to me.
-
You people that say you're conservative, and want someone to believe EXACTLY as you believe, well, you need to get off your lazy asses and run yourself. I have NEVER agreed with ANY candidate 100%.
I've never agreed with a candidate 100%. If I did, I would easily think they were lying to me. To expect them to fall in line with you 100% is just naive.
-
You people that say you're conservative, and want someone to believe EXACTLY as you believe, well, you need to get off your lazy asses and run yourself. I have NEVER agreed with ANY candidate 100%.
I was in the 80's with Uncle Fred, thats pretty good in my book !
-
Well, unless Barr gets off his ass and truly starts campaigning, as far as I'm concerned, he's a distraction. A couple of network TV appearances doesn't really constitute a campaign. BTW, I DID vote for Jesse!!! :tongue:
As far as agreeing 100% with a candidate, ain't gonna happen. I DON'T like Barr's stance on Iraq. There's a couple of other things I don't like about him. I STILL like him better than McLame. The Barfstar is a non-contender for me. I ABHOR Socialism and Marxism!!
I still fail to comprehend why Fred Thompson fell on his ass this nomination cycle. I REALLY preferred him. Duncan Hunter was another favorite.
-
I didn't read the entire thread, so forgive me if this point was already brought up...but I heard the opponents of this decision stated they can still keep guns out of D.C. by using zoning laws to keep them out. Don't know if that is a real option or not but if so, the libtards have sunk to a new low.
I have not seen that posted previously on this thread. I'd be interested to see how any zoning laws can circumvent the recent ruling.
-
Zoning laws can only prohibit the sales and/ or transfers of handguns in a locality.
For a brief synopsis, read this:
The Last Gun Shop (http://www.lewrockwell.com/suprynowicz/suprynowicz26.html)
-
We're at war with some really dangerous f'n people, and McCain is:
(http://logo.cafepress.com/3/3190793.jpg)
battle tested.
Does he mean he wants to keep us in Iraq for 100 years? **** NO! However, any soldier knows, you stay until the job is finished or you shouldn't have gone at all. The NVA were about a week away from giving up before the Damn liberals coerced us into pulling out.
The WOT is not the only issue that America is facing these days.
-
I've been saying that ever since the guy won the nomination. The man has done nothing to convince me that he will indeed nominate strict constructionist justices. He has a recent history of "reaching across the aisle" that worries me greatly.
Fine, vote for Barr, or whomever. Be sure to scan your "Thank You" letter from Obama and post it here. :whatever:
Some of us don't view McCain as some sort of savior and are not afraid to express our concerns.
Deal with it.
-
You people that say you're conservative, and want someone to believe EXACTLY as you believe,
Really?
I have certainly never posted that, nor have I seen anyone else do so either.
Perhaps you can do me a favor and point out any such post that I have overlooked?
-
Zoning laws can only prohibit the sales and/ or transfers of handguns in a locality.
For a brief synopsis, read this:
The Last Gun Shop (http://www.lewrockwell.com/suprynowicz/suprynowicz26.html)
I think I've read that before. Good catch.
-
Some of us don't view McCain as some sort of savior and are not afraid to express our concerns.
Deal with it.
Deal with it? How about showing me where in the ****! I said he was some kind of Damn savior? I'd rather have Thomson or, more specifically, Hunter. Tancredo wouldn't be bad either. ....but I don't HAVE that ****ing choice, do I?
Your move.
-
Some of us don't view McCain as some sort of savior and are not afraid to express our concerns.
Deal with it.
Deal with it? How about showing me where in the ****! I said he was some kind of Damn savior? I'd rather have Thomson or, more specifically, Hunter. Tancredo wouldn't be bad either. ....but I don't HAVE that ******* choice, do I?
Your move.
I ain't the one trying to guilt others into voting my way.
Fine, vote for Barr, or whomever. Be sure to scan your "Thank You" letter from Obama and post it here.
I would say "your move", but this isn't some sort of game.
It is merely a message board where on occassion folks don't always see eye to eye.
No more... No less....
-
I ain't the one trying to guilt others into voting my way.
People on this board will vote the way they want to vote. Mia, I think, is voting for Obama. You think I'm trying to "guilt" people? Well, only if you feel guilty. What, I can't express my views? You seem comfortable enough to do it. Guess I'm not allowed. :whatever:
I would say "your move", but this isn't some sort of game.
It is merely a message board where on occassion folks don't always see eye to eye.
No more... No less....
I said it because you told me to "deal with it". You can kiss my ass with that remark. I didn't try to do a DAMN thing to force you to vote for ANYONE. You vote for whatever candidate you want.....who has NO Damn chance of winning. Like I said, scan Obama's "Thank You" letter. I'm sure we'll all get a good laugh at it when our economy is REALLY in the tank and 5.5% unemployment seems like the good ole days.
-
Think Carter was bad? Wait until you have a TRUE Socialist with a Socialist Congress. Yeah, that'll be so cool? I've always wanted to be like France. Benets anyone?
-
Think Carter was bad? Wait until you have a TRUE Socialist with a Socialist Congress. Yeah, that'll be so cool? I've always wanted to be like France. Benets anyone?
beignets you mean?
And don't be dissing the beignets? That's some good eating.
:)
-
Rebel posts:
Like I said, scan Obama's "Thank You" letter.
Then attempts to claim he ain't trying to guilt those that don't see shit his way?
How priceless.
But I will no longer side track this thread about it.
I occurs to me that is why the folks that run this place created the fight club thread.
-
Rebel posts:
Like I said, scan Obama's "Thank You" letter.
Then attempts to claim he ain't trying to guilt those that don't see shit his way?
Truth sometimes hurts. "Deal with it".
I occurs to me that is why the folks that run this place created the fight club thread.
There are other boards, if you don't like this one. May I suggest http://www.conservativeunderground.com ? They have a huge Ron Paul following.
-
Rebel posts:
Like I said, scan Obama's "Thank You" letter.
Then attempts to claim he ain't trying to guilt those that don't see shit his way?
Truth sometimes hurts. "Deal with it".
I occurs to me that is why the folks that run this place created the fight club thread.
There are other boards, if you don't like this one. May I suggest http://www.conservativeunderground.com ? They have a huge Ron Paul following.
I could lower myself to trading insults with you. But I prefer to act like an adult.
Why don't you try doing so also?
-
I could lower myself to trading insults with you. But I prefer to act like an adult.
Why don't you try doing so also?
Rebel posts:
Like I said, scan Obama's "Thank You" letter.
Then attempts to claim he ain't trying to guilt those that don't see shit his way?
How priceless.
But I will no longer side track this thread about it.
I occurs to me that is why the folks that run this place created the fight club thread.
So grown ups are just snide rather than insultive.
Got it. :whatever:
-
I could lower myself to trading insults with you. But I prefer to act like an adult.
Why don't you try doing so also?
Rebel posts:
Like I said, scan Obama's "Thank You" letter.
Then attempts to claim he ain't trying to guilt those that don't see shit his way?
How priceless.
But I will no longer side track this thread about it.
I occurs to me that is why the folks that run this place created the fight club thread.
So grown ups are just snide rather than insultive.
Got it. :whatever:
:clap:
-
We're at war with some really dangerous f'n people, and McCain is:
(http://logo.cafepress.com/3/3190793.jpg)
battle tested.
Does he mean he wants to keep us in Iraq for 100 years? **** NO! However, any soldier knows, you stay until the job is finished or you shouldn't have gone at all. The NVA were about a week away from giving up before the Damn liberals coerced us into pulling out.
Bro, Senator McCain is a bitter old man that has made it very clear he doesn't give one shit about conservatives like us. His campaigns focus is independents and democrats; the same today as it was in 2000. He doesn't care about the GOP base, he wants to drag the party to the left and destroy it as it was because he hates us for denying him the oval office in 2000.
What you are saying is exactly what he is counting on - the conservative "base" will come crawling back and vote for him no matter how he's abused and neglected us over the past several years.
There are no guarantees he will nominate decent people to SCOTUS, that he will make the tax cuts permanent, that he will not destroy our economy with all of his green ideas and the witchhunting of the oil companies, etc....
For that matter, from the way he has talked about GITMO and "torture", I'm not so sure he will actually prosecute an effective war on terror.
There are no guarantees with this guy and for me, hoping he'll see the light is not enough for me to pull the lever.
-
The one real reason to vote for McCain - the reason which destroys all arguments against him - is that he being elected will cause liberal pinhead idiots everywhere to melt into a blob of sobbing hysterical wild-eyed anti-matter.
That will be my reward.
-
The one real reason to vote for McCain - the reason which destroys all arguments against him - is that he being elected will cause liberal pinhead idiots everywhere to melt into a blob of sobbing hysterical wild-eyed anti-matter.
That will be my reward.
Yeah, it would do that......
-
We're at war with some really dangerous f'n people, and McCain is:
(http://logo.cafepress.com/3/3190793.jpg)
battle tested.
Does he mean he wants to keep us in Iraq for 100 years? **** NO! However, any soldier knows, you stay until the job is finished or you shouldn't have gone at all. The NVA were about a week away from giving up before the Damn liberals coerced us into pulling out.
Bro, Senator McCain is a bitter old man that has made it very clear he doesn't give one shit about conservatives like us. His campaigns focus is independents and democrats; the same today as it was in 2000. He doesn't care about the GOP base, he wants to drag the party to the left and destroy it as it was because he hates us for denying him the oval office in 2000.
What you are saying is exactly what he is counting on - the conservative "base" will come crawling back and vote for him no matter how he's abused and neglected us over the past several years.
There are no guarantees he will nominate decent people to SCOTUS, that he will make the tax cuts permanent, that he will not destroy our economy with all of his green ideas and the witchhunting of the oil companies, etc....
For that matter, from the way he has talked about GITMO and "torture", I'm not so sure he will actually prosecute an effective war on terror.
There are no guarantees with this guy and for me, hoping he'll see the light is not enough for me to pull the lever.
Better to elect a complete through-and-through socialist who will raise taxes, subsidize sloth, weaken us internationally, embolden our enemies and cut and run in Iraq. That is MUCH better than someone who is not a REAL Conservative.
-
Better to elect a complete through-and-through socialist who will raise taxes, subsidize sloth, weaken us internationally, embolden our enemies and cut and run in Iraq. That is MUCH better than someone who is not a REAL Conservative.
Welcome to the Libertarian Party!
;)
They have to destroy the party in order to save it.
-
The one real reason to vote for McCain - the reason which destroys all arguments against him - is that he being elected will cause liberal pinhead idiots everywhere to melt into a blob of sobbing hysterical wild-eyed anti-matter.
That will be my reward.
H5.
And have i told you lately you are my hero? :-)
-
The one real reason to vote for McCain - the reason which destroys all arguments against him - is that he being elected will cause liberal pinhead idiots everywhere to melt into a blob of sobbing hysterical wild-eyed anti-matter.
That will be my reward.
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y5/freedumb2003/southpark_tearlick.gif)
My enemies' tears are sweet.
-
Good. I wish it was 9-0 though, but I am happy.
-
We're at war with some really dangerous f'n people, and McCain is:
(http://logo.cafepress.com/3/3190793.jpg)
battle tested.
Does he mean he wants to keep us in Iraq for 100 years? **** NO! However, any soldier knows, you stay until the job is finished or you shouldn't have gone at all. The NVA were about a week away from giving up before the Damn liberals coerced us into pulling out.
Bro, Senator McCain is a bitter old man that has made it very clear he doesn't give one shit about conservatives like us. His campaigns focus is independents and democrats; the same today as it was in 2000. He doesn't care about the GOP base, he wants to drag the party to the left and destroy it as it was because he hates us for denying him the oval office in 2000.
What you are saying is exactly what he is counting on - the conservative "base" will come crawling back and vote for him no matter how he's abused and neglected us over the past several years.
There are no guarantees he will nominate decent people to SCOTUS, that he will make the tax cuts permanent, that he will not destroy our economy with all of his green ideas and the witchhunting of the oil companies, etc....
For that matter, from the way he has talked about GITMO and "torture", I'm not so sure he will actually prosecute an effective war on terror.
There are no guarantees with this guy and for me, hoping he'll see the light is not enough for me to pull the lever.
Better to elect a complete through-and-through socialist who will raise taxes, subsidize sloth, weaken us internationally, embolden our enemies and cut and run in Iraq. That is MUCH better than someone who is not a REAL Conservative.
And if you can show me the real difference between them on "the environment", torture, big oil, big government, etc., then I may change my mind.
Also, try and see what the **** I'm saying before you try and throw some weak assed liberaltarian bullshit at me, k? Unlike you, I won't go back on my hands and knees to someone who doesn't want me. You can spend your time at the masters feet waiting for a crumb, I'd prefer to concentrate on local and congressional races so we can hopefully have something to blunt whatever liberal assclown is put into the White House this election cycle.
-
If conservatives want to vote for McCain because he's not Obama, I certainly understand that. If conservatives choose not to vote for McCain because they can't stand him, I can understand that. But to claim that not voting for McCain is the same as voting for Obama is just simply not true and there's no reason to even float that out as being the case. If someone does it, ignore it, it's not worth the effort to be concerned with. Conservatives can make up their own mind individually as to what is best for them and I, for one, will not begrudge them either way.
.
-
If conservatives want to vote for McCain because he's not Obama, I certainly understand that. If conservatives choose not to vote for McCain because they can't stand him, I can understand that. But to claim that not voting for McCain is the same as voting for Obama is just simply not true and there's no reason to even float that out as being the case. If someone does it, ignore it, it's not worth the effort to be concerned with. Conservatives can make up their own mind individually as to what is best for them and I, for one, will not begrudge them either way.
.
May not be true, but the outcome will still be the same. I voted for "Ears" twice. I've not only seen this song and dance before, I contributed to it. Not doing that again with someone that WAY left of Bill Clinton.
-
May not be true, but the outcome will still be the same. I voted for "Ears" twice. I've not only seen this song and dance before, I contributed to it. Not doing that again with someone that WAY left of Bill Clinton.
I don't know what the outcome will be if some conservatives don't vote for McCain. I understand what you and others are saying on a certain level, but do know that it's up to him to give conservatives a reason to want to vote for him, and it all rest on his shoulders if he is to win. Being the "Yes, I've stabbed you in the back and have contorted with the enemy but I'm not the other guy" thing isn't going to work with quite a few, and I can't blame them. He's got a pretty small window here to shape up and start talking like a conservative should talk and conduct themself if he hopes to attract even a portion of those conservatives who don't like him at all, because the closer it gets to November, the closer it'll look like he's just pandering. He's dug this hole for himself. He's the only one to blame for his foolish moves over the past several years and, if he loses, he only need look in the mirror.
.
-
We're at war with some really dangerous f'n people, and McCain is:
(http://logo.cafepress.com/3/3190793.jpg)
battle tested.
Does he mean he wants to keep us in Iraq for 100 years? **** NO! However, any soldier knows, you stay until the job is finished or you shouldn't have gone at all. The NVA were about a week away from giving up before the Damn liberals coerced us into pulling out.
Bro, Senator McCain is a bitter old man that has made it very clear he doesn't give one shit about conservatives like us. His campaigns focus is independents and democrats; the same today as it was in 2000. He doesn't care about the GOP base, he wants to drag the party to the left and destroy it as it was because he hates us for denying him the oval office in 2000.
What you are saying is exactly what he is counting on - the conservative "base" will come crawling back and vote for him no matter how he's abused and neglected us over the past several years.
There are no guarantees he will nominate decent people to SCOTUS, that he will make the tax cuts permanent, that he will not destroy our economy with all of his green ideas and the witchhunting of the oil companies, etc....
For that matter, from the way he has talked about GITMO and "torture", I'm not so sure he will actually prosecute an effective war on terror.
There are no guarantees with this guy and for me, hoping he'll see the light is not enough for me to pull the lever.
Better to elect a complete through-and-through socialist who will raise taxes, subsidize sloth, weaken us internationally, embolden our enemies and cut and run in Iraq. That is MUCH better than someone who is not a REAL Conservative.
And if you can show me the real difference between them on "the environment", torture, big oil, big government, etc., then I may change my mind.
Also, try and see what the **** I'm saying before you try and throw some weak assed liberaltarian bullshit at me, k? Unlike you, I won't go back on my hands and knees to someone who doesn't want me. You can spend your time at the masters feet waiting for a crumb, I'd prefer to concentrate on local and congressional races so we can hopefully have something to blunt whatever liberal assclown is put into the White House this election cycle.
:bow:
-
If someone can point me in the direction where I said I was enthusiastically supporting McCain, I'll give you 100 bucks. I have stated NUMEROUS times he's not "MY" first, second, third, or even fourth choice. At this point in time, he's my ONLY choice. I can't STAND McCain, the politician. I HATE, however, Obama.
I've done the protest vote before. TWICE, in '92 and '96. I voted for "Ears". Not doing that shit again. Try being in the Damn military with Blowjob Billy in office.
-
Gosh, I LOVE McCain and I am enthusiastically supporting him!
Sorry. I need the money.
*not a real quote
-
Gosh, I LOVE McCain and I am enthusiastically supporting him!
Sorry. I need the money to pay for my gay romances.
Sorry, cannot do. :-)
-
I could lower myself to trading insults with you. But I prefer to act like an adult.
Why don't you try doing so also?
Rebel posts:
Like I said, scan Obama's "Thank You" letter.
Then attempts to claim he ain't trying to guilt those that don't see shit his way?
How priceless.
But I will no longer side track this thread about it.
I occurs to me that is why the folks that run this place created the fight club thread.
So grown ups are just snide rather than insultive.
Got it. :whatever:
Ooops... I did get a bit crusty with Rebel. I've already apologized to him privately about it.
I got a little "caught" up in the issue.
-
I've done the protest vote before. TWICE, in '92 and '96. I voted for "Ears". Not doing that shit again. Try being in the Damn military with Blowjob Billy in office.
Been there done that. Don't want to see the sequal which involves the dusting off of Carter Era defence stratigies.
-
If someone can point me in the direction where I said I was enthusiastically supporting McCain, I'll give you 100 bucks. I have stated NUMEROUS times he's not "MY" first, second, third, or even fourth choice. At this point in time, he's my ONLY choice. I can't STAND McCain, the politician. I HATE, however, Obama.
I've done the protest vote before. TWICE, in '92 and '96. I voted for "Ears". Not doing that shit again. Try being in the Damn military with Blowjob Billy in office.
Oh no, I would be the last person to claim that you liked McCain. But when you voted for Perot twice instead of Bush41 and Dole, I'm not going to blame Clinton being elected on you or others like you. The only one's to blame for not securing your vote is Bush41 and Dole. That's their duty when running, to give you a reason to vote for them.
What you believe to be your "only choice" this year is in your hands and up to you, something all of us already know. All I'm saying is that I can't blame a bunch of people for not wanting to vote for McCain despite Hussein being a twit. McCain chose the path he's taken over the last decade or more, he made the calculated moves knowing that doing what he's done might lose him several conservative voters, and it'll either pan out for him or it won't.
.