|
1006
|
Political Discussions / United States / Re: The first page of Ron Paul's last chapter
|
on: February 10, 2008, 02:23:55 PM
|
The Constitution established the Court, "the judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court," but left its powers to be worked out by the Justices and Congress. Said powers were established in 1803. That is our system of government whether you like it or not: The Constitution says what the Court says it says, not some Texas Congressman, or me or you. No. You are mistaken. According to American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Volume 16, Section 177, and I quote: "Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it .... No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." That, my friend, puts the last word directly in the hands of the constitution....NOT into the hands of ANY court. And no law is unconstitutional unless the Supreme Court says it is. The last word on the Constitution is the court. That is an objective fact of our system of government. Get over it. |
|
|
|
|
1007
|
Political Discussions / United States / Re: Huckabee Wins Kansas
|
on: February 10, 2008, 12:21:16 PM
|
I am used to weirdness in Alabama, but getting 56% of the vote yet trailing in delegates is beyond weird. Grossly unfair seems more apt. IMHO.
OswaldTheOsprey
I'd say so. See, the Dems could be lauded for their more democratic system of apportioning delegates. Yet, on the other hand there is the superdelegate, which is supposed to put a check on the grassroots sending up a guy who can't win. It started after George McGovern won the nomination from the grass roots on 1972. This was a disaster. I think he won two states in the election. So superdelegates were created to, say, step in if a candidate won the primaries, who polled badly across the nation. The superdelegates were supposed to vote for the more electable candidate for the good of the party. How well it has worked is anyone's guess. It is probable, though, that if Obama, gains the majority of popular delegates, the unpledged supers will go to his side. Their are plenty unpledged supers left. I just think Hillary is just too well connected. If Obama continues on the pace he currently is running, it would be suicide for the supers to overturn. Personally, I think Obama would be the stronger candidate far from another McGovern. OswaldTheOsprey In a nutshell, yes. And Obama is nowhere near a McGovern. He is more electable than hillary. The sperdelegates are just too inside to know that. |
|
|
|
|
1008
|
Political Discussions / United States / Re: Obama's Experience-Andrew Sullivan
|
on: February 10, 2008, 12:17:26 PM
|
McCain is like bush?
Are you delusional?
Bush cut taxes twice, McCain voted againts those cuts.
Bush nominated conservative Judges and McCain created the gang of 14 to obstruct him..
Bush and Mccain are alike on two issues which are Immigration and Iraq
The Gang of 14, bloghead, negotiated a compromise with Dems to let Alito pass w/ out filibuster. Get your head out of the rightwing hysteria. |
|
|
|
|
1009
|
Political Discussions / United States / Re: Obama's Experience-Andrew Sullivan
|
on: February 10, 2008, 12:13:35 PM
|
McCain is like bush?
Are you delusional?
Bush cut taxes twice, McCain voted againts those cuts.
Bush nominated conservative Judges and McCain created the gang of 14 to obstruct him..
Bush and Mccain are alike on two issues which are Immigration and Iraq
Those are two mighty big issues. And by the way. Look again on the tax cuts. He voted against because of two TRUE CONSERVATIVE concerns, he didn't want to short defense and balloon the deficit. Then he voted to extend them and has pledged to support Bush's plea to make them permanent. He voted in SUPPORT of Bush's veto of child health care. Yep, no liberal there... I see quite clearly. McCain is not my guy, so I don't care. You, on the other hand, are hysterical, as in not rational. |
|
|
|
|
1011
|
Political Discussions / United States / Re: Huckabee Wins Kansas
|
on: February 10, 2008, 11:48:45 AM
|
I am used to weirdness in Alabama, but getting 56% of the vote yet trailing in delegates is beyond weird. Grossly unfair seems more apt. IMHO.
OswaldTheOsprey
I'd say so. See, the Dems could be lauded for their more democratic system of apportioning delegates. Yet, on the other hand there is the superdelegate, which is supposed to put a check on the grassroots sending up a guy who can't win. It started after George McGovern won the nomination from the grass roots on 1972. This was a disaster. I think he won two states in the election. So superdelegates were created to, say, step in if a candidate won the primaries, who polled badly across the nation. The superdelegates were supposed to vote for the more electable candidate for the good of the party. How well it has worked is anyone's guess. It is probable, though, that if Obama, gains the majority of popular delegates, the unpledged supers will go to his side. Their are plenty unpledged supers left. I just think Hillary is just too well connected. |
|
|
|
|
1012
|
Political Discussions / United States / Re: Obama Takes Nebraska & Washington State!
|
on: February 10, 2008, 11:37:08 AM
|
Hells Yeah! It is weird how he is winning the Dem primaries mostly in the Red States. I personally think that might indicate, outside the black vote in the South, the Western vote reflects pull among independents. I mean christ, I think there must be about 6 Dems in all Nebraska and four of them are conservatives and one of them is the state's only black guy. lol. Exaggeration aside, I think it is interesting that he runs so well in states that either have huge black populations or are overwhelmingly white. I want a President who can make most of us feel "One Nation" again. I personally think he can do it. I just don't think he'll get the chance. |
|
|
|
|
1013
|
Political Discussions / United States / Re: And the next president is...
|
on: February 10, 2008, 11:26:23 AM
|
When the hell did Reaganite become the voice for all conservatives? I don't care what he thinks.
Well, that's nice. The grievances were not REAGANITE'S, but those of the right wing attack machine, regurgitated. That's how the machine does things, you know, issue thoughts that all right wingers are supposed to have. That's why they hate McCain, occasionally, he parts from the indoctrination. Not in any significant way, just enough to look independent. In the Republican Army, even small gestures of non-conformity can get one ruthlessly beaten. My my you're egotistical, or perhaps self-absorbed. What YOU think is neither here nor there as far as my original argument goes. It remains that with few exeptions McCain is a conservative. The right wing attack machine is doing their best to paint him as different and the list they came up with is pathetic. No I won't play word games. The rats are leaving the Republican ship and trying to take the word "conservative" with them, saying Bush is not a conservative. Golly gee, up till 2006, no one disputed he was a conservative, now suddenly he is not. I have a memory, so I am not buying it. Bush and McCain are Reagan conservative, like it or lump it. |
|
|
|
|
1014
|
Political Discussions / United States / Re: Huckabee Wins Kansas
|
on: February 09, 2008, 04:44:56 PM
|
Um, I haven't crunched the numbers, but because Republicans are winner-take-all (in terms of delegates) in each state, I think McCain is virtually guaranteed, because of the mass of delegates he has. The Republican system is set up like that to avoid horse races. As the more authoritarian party, they like to settle hard and fast and early around a candidate, to prep for the battle against the "enemy." Because of this, Huckabee would need to sweep almost every other state to be even in contention. Democrats apportion delegates state by state, according how big a vote a candidate got in said state. So saying Obama won a state or Clinton won can be deceptive. Obama won Missouri, for instance, but by so slim a margin that it was a tie in terms of delegates. It's like this: Republican X beats Republican Y by 60% and there are 10 delegates in state Z, then Y gets all ten. And if Democrat X beats Democrat Y by 60% and there are 10 delegates in state Z, then X gets 6 and Y gets 4. And it gets weirder because Obama won Alabama, but Clinton has two delegates more than him there. Why? Superdelegates. They are not assigned by vote but automatically have a vote (party bigwigs) and can go any way they want. That's why the Dem race is a true horse race. While McCain towers over Huckabee by 500 delegates, Clinton is only 101 over, which could easily be lost. If anybody is as wonky as me about this, you can see how the states split Clinton/Obama, including superdelegates in states that have not yet voted. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/ |
|
|
|
|
1015
|
Political Discussions / United States / Re: Obama's Experience-Andrew Sullivan
|
on: February 09, 2008, 04:14:18 PM
|
Excellent work Oswald! Plus, I would like to mention one thing. What would be so wrong with a one or two term Senator in the White House? Enough time to understand how Washington works but not enough to be corrupted by lobbyists or favours. I hear the Clintons had to give Hillary's campaign five million dollars of their own money.. money problems there? Especially down the stretch? Ouch, we all know you can't win without it. If Obama stays close with delegates the rest of the way and also gets enough delegates out of Texas, it will come down to the DNC with the Edwards factor and a grand rumble. Senator Edwards will be in a position to make the next president of the United States. Who will deal best?.. or rather who would Edwards want to be Vice-President for? I think there are too many conflicting opinions about Hillary (of the WE are the President ilk) and McCain is too much like Bush that the American people look set for a Democratic President. IMHO Kind regards Terry Thank you very much, Terry. I am with you in re Obama's experience, IMHO he is very qualified. As to Edwards, I am quite sure he is being heavily courted by both sides. Sincerely, OswaldTheOsprey If Edwards doesn't support Obama, well he loses points w/ me. He was my first choice after all... Perhaps he will. In debates he would join Obama in standing up to Clinton. OswaldTheOsprey As far as delegates, my research says it won't make much diff. If he was going to endorse, it would have happened by now. I'M JUST SO SICK OF THESE SAME BRANDS! AAAARRRGGHHH! |
|
|
|
|
1017
|
Political Discussions / United States / Re: Obama's Experience-Andrew Sullivan
|
on: February 09, 2008, 04:00:51 PM
|
Excellent work Oswald! Plus, I would like to mention one thing. What would be so wrong with a one or two term Senator in the White House? Enough time to understand how Washington works but not enough to be corrupted by lobbyists or favours. I hear the Clintons had to give Hillary's campaign five million dollars of their own money.. money problems there? Especially down the stretch? Ouch, we all know you can't win without it. If Obama stays close with delegates the rest of the way and also gets enough delegates out of Texas, it will come down to the DNC with the Edwards factor and a grand rumble. Senator Edwards will be in a position to make the next president of the United States. Who will deal best?.. or rather who would Edwards want to be Vice-President for? I think there are too many conflicting opinions about Hillary (of the WE are the President ilk) and McCain is too much like Bush that the American people look set for a Democratic President. IMHO Kind regards Terry Thank you very much, Terry. I am with you in re Obama's experience, IMHO he is very qualified. As to Edwards, I am quite sure he is being heavily courted by both sides. Sincerely, OswaldTheOsprey If Edwards doesn't support Obama, well he loses points w/ me. He was my first choice after all... |
|
|
|
|
1018
|
Political Discussions / United States / Re: The first page of Ron Paul's last chapter
|
on: February 09, 2008, 03:53:25 PM
|
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/02/09/politics/p092049S41.DTL"Presidential hopeful Ron Paul said he will not run as a third-party candidate in a new message to supporters that seems to recognize his slim chances at getting the Republican nomination. The Texas congressman wrote on his Web site Friday that he is making cuts to his national campaign staff and that he must also stay focused on not losing the primary for his House seat." I personally hoped he would run a thrid party candidacy to strip the Reps of votes. Alas, whatever does one do when one is an angry young white on the internet who thinks the Constitution is supposed to be interpreted by a Texas Congressman, rather than the Supreme Court? The internationalists who control both major duopoly were certainly not going to let non-conformists like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich make any headway. International high finance will not let anyone come in the way of the profits or their power. OswaldTheOsprey Or...Ron Paul is not a good candidate. I think he is a demagogic idiot who doesn't understand the Constitution. I actually know his positions and oppose them with good arguments, so please none of the standard issue rants about me being brain washed by the MSM and the Democrats. Its tiresome... I did not say you were brainwashed by the msm or the Democrats-in fact I listed Dennis Kucinich, a Democrat along with Paul as a true non-conformist. Not to mention, I support and voted for Obama. Calling anyone who is opposed by the internationalist elite demogogic is tiresome, IMHO. OswaldTheOsprey You have in the past tried to make the standard "Independant's" argument that I just vote for the "D." I think Kucinich is fine, just not realistic. I don't want to just vote for the non-conformist, either. I actually thought of you when Obama won Alabama and wondered what you thought about it. I have my answer by accident. Thanx. Paul is a demagogue because he appeals to emotion and erroneous populist ideas of the Constitution. It has nothing to do with "internationalist elite." The internationalist elite are why we are in hellholes like Iraq. Another Democrat I admire is Grover Cleveland-the last U.S. president who sent no U.S. military overseas. He left office in 1897 and what has followed has been almost, to quote Dr. Harry Elmer Barnes, "Perpetual war for perpetual peace". OswaldTheOsprey We are no longer in a position where we can ignore the world. China Russia and the EU will match us soon. I think we need to learn more from what they are doing and co-opt it, rather than covering our eyes to reality. |
|
|
|
|
1019
|
Political Discussions / United States / Re: And the next president is...
|
on: February 09, 2008, 03:50:26 PM
|
Pathetic's not a Conservative anyway. He's a Republican.
They haven't been the same since Reagan.
Hello,  I am nto a "republican" I am a conservative I will not toe the line and vote for McCain. I will work very hard to make sure he does not get elected. Quote
-- He excoriated Samuel Alito as too "conservative."
I would love to see this quote in it's original context and source, yet McCain voted for Alito. I also poked around and found this may have been fabricated outright. You know conservative bloggers, they let no fact stand in their way, even when eating thier own. Then there is the issue of judicial nominations, a top priority with conservatives. Nothing would improve Mr. McCain's standing with conservatives more than a forthright restatement of his previously stated view that "one of our greatest problems in America today is justices that legislate from the bench." Mr. McCain bruised his standing with conservatives on the issue when in 2005 he became a key player in the so-called gang of 14, which derailed an effort to end Democratic filibusters of Bush judicial nominees. More recently, Mr. McCain has told conservatives he would be happy to appoint the likes of Chief Justice John Roberts to the Supreme Court. But he indicated he might draw the line on a Samuel Alito, because "he wore his conservatism on his sleeve." Therein lies the problem that many conservatives have with John McCain. It is the nagging feeling that after all of his years of chummily bonding with liberal reporters and garnering favorable media coverage from them that the Arizona senator is embarrassed to be seen as too much of a conservative. Last week's editorial endorsement of Mr. McCain by the New York Times, which delighted in recounting every one of Mr. McCain's disagreements with conservatives, didn't help. "John has to begin a new phase of his campaign," says one prominent Republican in Congress who is backing Mr. McCain. "He has to decide if he wants to be a leader of the conservative movement that he says he joined after Ronald Reagan inspired him to enter politics in 1982. If he does that, he can be accepted. If he doesn't, he will have to settle for a shotgun marriage with conservatives." We may know the answer to all this if Mr. McCain decides to speak at CPAC a little more than a week from now. Then the question will become: What kind of tack will he take in addressing the legitimate concerns conservatives have about his record? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120146652798920519.htmlQuote
-- He promoted amnesty for 20 million illegal immigrants.
Reagan and Bush both backed amnesty. Eh, no, those guys are not liberals. Just because Bush ruined the conservative movement doen't make him our fault. Reagan was chided by conservatives at the time for it and is his black mark.. Bush is NOT a conservative at all so I would expect him to support amnesty... Quote
-- He abridged citizens' free speech (in favor of the media) with McCain-Feingold.
This is pretty funny. Yeah, um, McCain Fiengold was campaign finance reform. Are we saying campaign finance is a liberal issue. Mebbe conservatives should get on the ball here. No campaign finance is not a liberal issue ABRIDING FREE SPEACH IN FAVOR OF THE MSM IS LIBERAL!.... jeeze son get you head out of your butt.. Quote
-- He hysterically opposes waterboarding terrorists and wants to shut down Guantanamo.
Whoa! So supporting torture and an extra-Constituional gulags is Conservative? just because he broke and gave up military secrets because he leg was hurt while bing shot down he thinks torture is bad... He gave up info without being interogated and thinks Terrorists will do the same I guess.... -- He denounced the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
So denouncing proven liars in defense of a fellow veteran is liberal? Glad I'm not conservative. Where are they PROVEN LIARS? Explain how they Lied??? Quote
-- He opposes ANWR and supports the global warming cult, even posturing with fellow mountebank Arnold Schwarzenegger in front of solar panels.
Ya got me there, he a wild-eyed liberal socialist because he doen't want to waste money on 6 months worth of oil in Alaska or keep fighting an argument on Global Warming that has been lost over and over.
Now, after this pathetic, superficial and distorted list, this is all they could come up with to brand him as one of ours? Every way else he comes straight down the line with Reagan and Bush. BUSH is not a conservative, and please McCain is not even in the same league with Reagan and you insult Reagan by mentioning his name in the same sentance with bush and McCain. You can't be for Reagan and a Conservative. Bush did what Reagan did, amnesty for immigrants, massive debt, Reagan signed 6 tax increases, bush, none. Reagan also expanded the government. Bush was adored by conservatives right up until a few years ago when you realized he tarnished conservatism with the American public, with the unpopular war in Iraq. Don't blame us liberals for Bush and McCain. We despise them both and Reagan. They all look the same to us, war mongering indifference to the middle class and working poor, welfare for the rich...please, I hope you guys kill each other. |
|
|
|
|
1020
|
Political Discussions / United States / Re: Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona as a war hero
|
on: February 09, 2008, 03:41:14 PM
|
Let the "swift boating" begin.
I just never thought the Republicans would fall on their own like this.
Ah, I see you said it before I did. Tells you a bit about the chaos in the Republican party. Leave it to the dems to take advantage of the chaos by sending in their weakest player. I wonder if they'll be so busy smearing McCain, they'll forget to grease the attack machine for Hillary? They say Obama doesn't have much experience, he also doesn't have baggage. I'm sick of brand Bush, Clinton and McCain. McCain or Hillary, it's gonna be a long 4 years...but it will be McCain. May be then we can take the Clintons Bushes and McCains, put them in a rocket and shoot them away forever. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
