What the Republicans need to do

[jillian]

It's one vote from being conservative. Kennedy is the "middle of the road" justice that keeps Roe legal.

And now there won't be any more justices appointed for the benefit of the religious right for a while.

Kennedy is firmly a conservative, btw... it's thomas, scalia, and alito who are extremists.

 

[elvis]

And now there won't be any more justices appointed for the benefit of the religious right for a while.

Kennedy is firmly a conservative, btw... it's thomas, scalia, and alito who are extremists.

assuming no one dies in the next couple months. and I'm not pulling a Hillary here.

 

[Red Dawn]

But the good news is you're going to push the US directly into a civil war and we, what's left of America will destroy you for your trouble. All we're waiting on is you to start it. And that can be anytime... if tonights not too soon, that would work for me... just take to the streets on mass, in a frenzy of rage demanding that to which you're entitled and we'll take it from there.

Sorry Francis, I'm going to have to cut you loose.

I don't have the time or inclination to banter with a psychotic who forgot to take their meds.

 

[jillian]

assuming no one dies in the next couple months. and I'm not pulling a Hillary here.

you have two months until Obama is inaugurated. There won't be any Bush nominee whose appointment would go forward before January 20th, IMO.

Hopefully, that won't even be a question. Bush has come too close to destroying the court. I say that not just in a partisan way. There were republican appointees like Souter who were never right wing idealogues but who are just brilliant jurists (you do remember souter was daddy bush's appointment, right?). This whole "original intent" pretend method of constitutional construction simply doesn't exist and needs to be held in abeyance as much as possible until it fades into obscurity and disrepute like the Dred Scott decision.

And before you talk about "liberal justices legislating from the bench", by the standard of the number of legislative acts which are struck down, republicans are far more activist.

 

[elvis]

you have two months until Obama is inaugurated. There won't be any Bush nominee whose appointment would go forward before January 20th, IMO.

Hopefully, that won't even be a question. Bush has come too close to destroying the court. I say that not just in a partisan way. There were republican appointees like Souter who were never right wing idealogues but who are just brilliant jurists (you do remember souter was daddy bush's appointment, right?). This whole "original intent" pretend method of constitutional construction simply doesn't exist and needs to be held in abeyance as much as possible until it fades into obscurity and disrepute like the Dred Scott decision.

And before you talk about "liberal justices legislating from the bench", by the standard of the number of legislative acts which are struck down, republicans are far more activist.

I was going to bring up Souter, Stevens, and Kennedy. Stevens was appointed by Ford. Kennedy by Reagan. They haven't panned out like they thought. I don't recall the reason, but it seems it was Ike who regretted putting Earl Warren on the bench.
It goes to show, a justice appointed by a President doesn't necessarily reflect that President's viewpoints.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Your simple mindedness is the problem with the party. Roe will never be overturned.

False... Roe is not valid law dumbass. It cites a right which, given the principles on which the US was founded CANNOT EXIST.

You have no right to take human life where that life is not a threat to your own... PARTICULARLY WHEN YOU ARE DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONCEPTION OF THAT LIFE.

Western jurisprudence has long since established what IS and is NOT a valid justification for the taking of human life and 'CONVENIENCE" is NOT ONE OF THEM.

We have a conservative court right now, yet Roe is still the law of the land. Why do you think that is?

ROFLMNAO... Oh GOD that's precious. We have four Americans on the court, two leftist symapthizers and three radical leftists... It takes 5 votes to carry a majority...

We have a conservative LEANING court right now... The two 'centrists' will go with the left on Roe and because of THAT the right won't bring it... and the left is scared shitless to even TRY, because they damn well know that all it takes is 5 to shut that legal, moral and spiritual train-wreck DOWN. Roe is the key to their debauchery... and immorality is the hinge on which humanism turns.

As for sanctity of marriage. This already the law. Clinton it into law.

ROFLMNAO... "Clinton signed it into law"... Oh yeah we have a REAL CHAMPION OF AMERICA HERE! She's so up to speed that she's given Bill Clinton who signed that law in September of 96... barely a MONTH before the 96 election; this after three years of CONTESTING the idea and advocating AGAINST IT.

Yes it is being challenged, but those challeges are being defeated. Why rebuild a the party on an issue that already has a law that supports your position?

DEFENDING IT... We just passed a constitutional amendment in Florida preventing fags from marrying... We rebuild the party on the immutable principle... KICKING "CENTRISTS" that feel that homosexuality is perfectly fine... THE **** OUT OF THE GOP.

To do so would be stupid. One because there is no reason to fight a battl ethat has already been won.

If you truly believe that battle is over, then you truly are a MAJOR part of the problem.

Two, because it is a wedge issue that will do nothing but divide the electorate even more than it already is.

The electorate is divided because THERE ARE MAJOR DIVISION IN THEIR THINKING. My position on the 'feelings' of the left is **** THEM! They're idiots, as are the independent, moderate, centrist, progressives that enable them to find power. Which most definitely includes people like YOU!

We ahve built the party on wedge issues such as these for 28 years and it destroyed us. Why repeat our mistakes?

What destroyed the GOP is lending credience to the idiocy that the GOP needs to lend credence to the panty-waist drivel of MODERATES!, which is PC code for leftists without the balls to commit.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Sorry Francis, I'm going to have to cut you loose.

I don't have the time or inclination to banter with a psychotic who forgot to take their meds.

Your concession was anticipated, as you never really had a shot... its noted and accepted.

 

[jillian]

Says the pretentious twit who thinks it can determine what supreme court decisions are "valid".

hehehehehehehehehehehehehe!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

And now there won't be any more justices appointed for the benefit of the religious right for a while.

Kennedy is firmly a conservative, btw... it's thomas, scalia, and alito who are extremists.

ROFLMNAO... Kennedy is nowhere NEAR a conservative... the assertion that he is, is absolute nonsense.

Americans are represented on the Court by Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas. Leaving two 'moderates" Stevens and Kennedy and three full fledge subversive leftists... for a total of 5 leftists.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Says the pretentious twit who thinks it can determine what supreme court decisions are "valid".

hehehehehehehehehehehehehe!

Well there ya have it kids... A leftist coming to inform the board that only the high-holies of the Supreme court are THE ONLY ONES that are able to reason through the heady issues of what is and is not constitutionally valid.

Of course, this idiot is taking this position because she's defending the means of women to kill the children they conceive through illicit sex. Nothing evil there...

So she's taking he position that the SCOTUS is the sole arbiter of what is and is not well reasoned, logically valid and intellectually sound.

That the SC determined in Roe that a human being has a RIGHT TO KILL ANOTHER HUMAN BEING... A HUMAN BEING THEY ARE DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR HAVING CONCEIVED... THAT THEY CAN KILL THAT HUMAN BEING for ANY REASON... she feels that it is morally right and because the SC said so... well then it is. PERIOD.

Of course if the SC were to decide tomorrow that killing women that have abortions is a right of anyone that feels these women are incovenient... WELL HOLY SC! We can rest assured that she would be JUST as certain that the SC is off the scale and completely out of order.

So her position is not logically valid, it is not well reasoned, nor is it intellectually sound. But what else should one expect from a Leftist?

 

[9 Volt]

Well there ya have it kids... A leftist coming to inform the board that only the high-holies of the Supreme court are THE ONLY ONES that are able to reason through the heady issues of what is and is not constitutionally valid.

Of course, this idiot is taking this position because she's defending the means of women to kill the children they conceive through illicit sex. Nothing evil there...

So she's taking he position that the SCOTUS is the sole arbiter of what is and is not well reasoned, logically valid and intellectually sound.

That the SC determined in Roe that a human being has a RIGHT TO KILL ANOTHER HUMAN BEING... A HUMAN BEING THEY ARE DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR HAVING CONCEIVED... THAT THEY CAN KILL THAT HUMAN BEING for ANY REASON... she feels that it is morally right and because the SC said so... well then it is. PERIOD.

Of course if the SC were to decide tomorrow that killing women that have abortions is a right of anyone that feels these women are incovenient... WELL HOLY SC! We can rest assured that she would be JUST as certain that the SC is off the scale and completely out of order.

So her position is not logically valid, it is not well reasoned, nor is it intellectually sound. But what else should one expect from a Leftist?

Give it up Pubic Infinity. Who ever mentioned morals? Nobody cares about your interpretation of what is or isn't moral. Do you have the power to determine constitutional validity? I didn't think so. "This isn't Nam Donnie, there are rules here"...and also, I think I speak for most here when I say we're sick and tired of reading your never-ending judgements that nothing which isn't rooted in your version of radical fundamentalism is not logically valid or intellectually sound. "ROFLMNAO", oh "How Precious". You see, the very fact that you are a fundamentalist was really only the first sign that you couldn't possibly make a single logical argument or arrive at a at least one intellectually sound conclusion. The second were your tiresome, jihadist rants. It seems that you're the only poster here who doesn't know the golden rule that logic cannot co-exist with fundamentalism.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

False... Roe is not valid law dumbass. It cites a right which, given the principles on which the US was founded CANNOT EXIST.

Based on the fact that Roe overturned almost every law in the country concerning the legality of abortion, it is essentially the law of the land. Every law that has been past since has had stand the test of Roe and most have failed.

You have no right to take human life where that life is not a threat to your own... PARTICULARLY WHEN YOU ARE DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONCEPTION OF THAT LIFE.

Though I emphatically agree with this position, unfotunately it is not the law and never will be.

Western jurisprudence has long since established what IS and is NOT a valid justification for the taking of human life and 'CONVENIENCE" is NOT ONE OF THEM.

i agree and would support any measure to restrict abortions. Abortion on demand is not okay as far as I am concerned and never should be. I still don't want to rebuild a party platform on this.

ROFLMNAO... Oh GOD that's precious. We have four Americans on the court, two leftist symapthizers and three radical leftists... It takes 5 votes to carry a majority...

So only those that agree with you are Americans? And you call me a dumbass?

We have a conservative LEANING court right now... The two 'centrists' will go with the left on Roe and because of THAT the right won't bring it... and the left is scared shitless to even TRY, because they damn well know that all it takes is 5 to shut that legal, moral and spiritual train-wreck DOWN. Roe is the key to their debauchery... and immorality is the hinge on which humanism turns.

I'll give you that. Kudos.

ROFLMNAO... "Clinton signed it into law"... Oh yeah we have a REAL CHAMPION OF AMERICA HERE! She's so up to speed that she's given Bill Clinton who signed that law in September of 96... barely a MONTH before the 96 election; this after three years of CONTESTING the idea and advocating AGAINST IT.

Who is "she"? I never contended that Clinton was achampion of this law. I know damn good and well that Clinton advocated against and was forced to sign it or face an embarassing congressional override. Stil, itis fact that Clinton signed it into law.

DEFENDING IT... We just passed a constitutional amendment in Florida preventing fags from marrying... We rebuild the party on the immutable principle... KICKING "CENTRISTS" that feel that homosexuality is perfectly fine... THE **** OUT OF THE GOP.

I tell you what. Kick those "centrists" out of the party and then see how many elections you win from now on. You need as much more than we need you. The right's platform is built on family values. The problem with that is that family values don't platy as well in national politics as they used too. The new generation of Republicans don't want the government telling us how to raise our familys. This goes back to that "Less government interference in individual lives" idea that isn't in any way new to the GOP.

If you truly believe that battle is over, then you truly are a MAJOR part of the problem.

If you believe that there is battle then you are the ******* problem.

The electorate is divided because THERE ARE MAJOR DIVISION IN THEIR THINKING. My position on the 'feelings' of the left is **** THEM! They're idiots, as are the independent, moderate, centrist, progressives that enable them to find power. Which most definitely includes people like YOU!

This is exactly the problem that I was addressing. The inability to see past your own positions and not find any commonality with the other side. For well over 200 years, this country has run on the premise that compromise is the answer. We are all different and must find a way to work toghether to govern.

What destroyed the GOP is lending credience to the idiocy that the GOP needs to lend credence to the panty-waist drivel of MODERATES!, which is PC code for leftists without the balls to commit.

I am considered a moderate only by those that cannot differentiate btween social conservativism and political conservatism. If you aren't smart enough to know the difference then the Consitution Party is for.

 

[mightypeon]

Should we have followed General Patton and gone on to Moscow? We would have saved millions of lives from the worst murderer in history. It seems Stalin gets a free pass. I guess history is written by the victors.

Well, in 1945 the US could have nuked moscow, but definitly not conquered it.
Considering the enourmous problems US troops had with (more or less second tier at best) North Korean forces, we should all be thankfull that a direct conventional clash with the Red Army at its prime never happened.
You may want to read up on Kalchin Gol (pre WW2 battle between Japanese Elite Formations and a hastily assembled Soviet-Mongolian force, decisive Russian victory) and on Operation August Storm (Red Army conducted a multi pronged Blitzkrieg on Japanese Manchuria, an area as big as western Europe, 1 million Japanese were, although fighting bravely, not able to even delay them).

Combined Arms Research Library
Battle of Khalkhin Gol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[mightypeon]

Considering Germanys ability to defend itself:

1: From whom?

There are only two countries in the world that have the force projection capacity to reach Germany with significant forces, the name of one country is the USA. Germany happens to be allied with them.
The only other contender is Russia, who is not going to get military access from Poland anytime soon.
Politics are not a Computer Game, any declaration of war will have a buildup of tensions first. Germany can easily built its own nukes in about a year, or we could just buy them from France.

Secondly, lets have look at what the German Army is: the current manpower is at some 250.000. If an invasion looms, Germany could easily recruit fairly large numbers (total number of persons fit for service is 15.25 million, between a third and a half of them have received military training) since we do have a compulsory military service which produces large amounts of reservists.
From what I have seen during my time in the German Army, our army (Heer) is propably technologically at least equal to slightly superior to the American one. German forces have a clear lead in small arms, a (very) clear lead in Self propelled artillery, will soon have a lead in Armored personal carriers (simply becaue the Puma is about a 2 decades newer) and are about equal in main battle tanks. The US has better Attack Chopters, and propably an edge in MLRS systems. The technological lead would disappear if the US decides to go for a serious modernisation, which was attempted in f.e. the Crusader project. However that failed.
Germanys Airforce is off worse technogically, the whole Eurofighter buisness was likely a shot in the leg. The not so great Germany navy would propably not play a huge role in a Russian invasion.

Bottom line, Germany is quite fine, tank you

 

[editec]

Does anybody else have a useful idea on what the direction of the GOP should be?

I do.

Economic nationalism.

That's what the Republican Party stood up for from Abe Lincoln's time until Reagan's time.

Get back to that, and the american people, and this Republic will start thriving again.

Continue the destruction of this nation by economic trade (right along with the Democratic leadership) and this nation is hosed.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

False... Roe is not valid law dumbass. It cites a right which, given the principles on which the US was founded CANNOT EXIST.

Based on the fact that Roe overturned almost every law in the country concerning the legality of abortion, it is essentially the law of the land. Every law that has been past since has had stand the test of Roe and most have failed.

I didn't contest the fact that Roe is law... I stated that Roe is not VALID law. Meaning that Roe does not rest upon valid reasoning, and it stands in direct, diametrical opposition to the long standing principles of Western Jurisprudence wherein the ONLY moral, THUS LEGAL justification for the taking a human life is defense of one's own life or that of another in one's immediate presence; where one reasonably determines that the human life which is taken represented a clear and present danger... where the human life taken was attempting to violate the human rights of the TAKER, WITHOUT VALID MORAL JUSTIFICATION.

Roe sets aside that immutable principle; Roe dismisses the right of the unborn human and provides that ONE HUMAN BEING HAS AUTHORITY OVER THE OTHER TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY ARE RIGHTFULLY ABLE TO TAKE THAT DEFENSLESS LIFE FOR ANY REASON... Thus Roe does NOT SERVE JUSTICE, THUS ROE IS NOT VALID LAW; this despite that Roe IS law...

You have no right to take human life where that life is not a threat to your own... PARTICULARLY WHEN YOU ARE DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONCEPTION OF THAT LIFE.

Though I emphatically agree with this position, unfotunately it is not the law and never will be.

So you think I'm stating that Roe is not law? If Roe were not law, I wouldn't give a red-rats ass about Roe... So I fail to see the purpose of what would otherwise appear to be a contest.

Western jurisprudence has long since established what IS and is NOT a valid justification for the taking of human life and 'CONVENIENCE" is NOT ONE OF THEM.

i agree and would support any measure to restrict abortions. Abortion on demand is not okay as far as I am concerned and never should be. I still don't want to rebuild a party platform on this.

So you agree that Roe is a principle-less, unjustifiable law, which can NEVER serve justice and as such can only serve to undermine the moral authority of the US government, thus the people of the United States... but you don't want the GOP to stand on this particular immutable principle?

Well, CONGRATS! You're a certified Independent, MODERATE, centrist, progressive: Here's your sign.

(Friends, this species of reasoning is how we ended up with John McCain as a candidate and thus how we inevitably ended up with spend-thrift, leftist appeasing Republican simple majorities in the House and Senate which inevitably resulted in THE SWEARING IN OF A MARXIST MUSLIM AS PRESIDENT OF THE US, BARELY SEVEN YEARS AFTER THE US WAS ATTACKED BY MARXIST MUSLIMS.)

Now please take it and exit the GOP at the nearest exit...

ROFLMNAO... Oh GOD that's precious. We have four Americans on the court, two leftist sympathizers and three radical leftists... It takes 5 votes to carry a majority...

So only those that agree with you are Americans? And you call me a dumbass?

No... Only those who advocate for policy which stands within the principles on which the US Thesis was founded, are Americans... One is decidedly NOT an American where the advocacies advanced by that individual stand ANTI-THETICAL TO THE AMERICAN THESIS... FOR INSTANCE:

The SCOTUS decision that the COLLECTIVE is best served by the usurpation of the INDIVIDUALS RIGHT TO OWN AND KEEP THE REAL PRIVATE PROPERTY where that real private property will be used to better serve the collective BY ANOTHER PRIVATE INTEREST... This due to the new private interests, constructing that which returns to the municipality a higher level of tax revenue...

Absolutely IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE AMERICAN THESIS.

Another example can be found in the SCOTUS wherein several Justices are quite certain that the laws of other nations can be used as a guide in their decisions... which is a semantic obfuscation wherein the SUPREME COURT JUSTICE WILL NOT BASE THEIR DECISION UPON THE US CONSTITUTION, BUT UPON THE POPULAR WHIMSY OF EURO-LAW...


Absolutely IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE AMERICAN THESIS.

Hate-Crime... WHOLLY LEFTIST and THOROUGHLY ANTI-AMERICAN. As it is thought control at it's most lame.

We have a conservative LEANING court right now... The two 'centrists' will go with the left on Roe and because of THAT the right won't bring it... and the left is scared shitless to even TRY, because they damn well know that all it takes is 5 to shut that legal, moral and spiritual train-wreck DOWN. Roe is the key to their debauchery... and immorality is the hinge on which humanism turns.

I'll give you that. Kudos.

I never contended that Clinton was achampion of this law. I know damn good and well that Clinton advocated against and was forced to sign it or face an embarassing congressional override. Stil, itis fact that Clinton signed it into law.

Indeed, but it is a fact which should NEVER BE STATED WITHOUT STATING THE OTHER MORE NOTEWORTHY FACT: CLINTON HAD NO POLITICAL CHOICE< BUT TO SIGN IT. Clinton would never let a principle get between him and a political gain...

I tell you what. Kick those "centrists" out of the party and then see how many elections you win from now on.

Great, just sign that and we'll start moving their furniture to the street.

You need as much more than we need you.

Absolutely FALSE. We don't need them in the slightest. That notion is what lead the US to putting a MARXIST MUSLIM IN THE WHITE HOUSE. You people have completely turned your backs to valid moral principle and its cost you EVERYTHING. CENTRISTS ARE LEFTISTS! MODERATES WILL GO WITH POPULAR WHIMSY 9 out of ten times...

The GOP needs to return to our roots and that is the principles of the FOUNDING... We need to respect federalism, while operating a lean and mean federal government which jealously defends the nation on the whole as well as the rights of the individual. Ya can't do that while you're appeasing those who believe that most of what your opposition believes is right on track.

The right's platform is built on family values. The problem with that is that family values don't platy as well in national politics as they used too.

ROFLMNAO.. SO FREAKIN' WHAT? My GOD! I can't believe you just made that admission through a written implication. SO because a principle is not popular, that principle needs to be removed from the foundation on which the party rests? Get serious...

The new generation of Republicans don't want the government telling us how to raise our families. This goes back to that "Less government interference in individual lives" idea that isn't in any way new to the GOP.

No Republican wants the government to tell us how to raise our families... We want families to recognize and respect valid principle and raise their children within the scope of those immutable laws of nature. Thus we stand on those principles, voice them, practice them and excoriate those that dismiss them.

However you can rest assured that by appeasing the ideological left, either in the radical form of the President elect; the embodiment of deceit, a Muslim Marxist running as a Christian Centrist, or the common political moderate, who sees good ideas on both sides of RIGHT and WRONG... that you will fall farther and farther away from any means to raise your family without government intrusion. Read the UN declaration on Children&#8217;s rights... your new President will do everything in his power to see to it that this is implemented into US law. At that point, you're means to raise your children, is out the door... all you will be beyond that is a caretaker of a new crop of party workers.

If you truly believe that battle is over, then you truly are a MAJOR part of the problem.

If you believe that there is battle then you are the ******* problem.

Indeed I am the problem which the left must get around... "I" being one example of millions of Americans that are certain in what is and is not a valid moral principle and that one does not build a nation absent those valid moral principles and hope that such is a viable experiment.

The electorate is divided because THERE ARE MAJOR DIVISION IN THEIR THINKING. My position on the 'feelings' of the left is **** THEM! They're idiots, as are the independent, moderate, centrist, progressives that enable them to find power; which most definitely includes people like YOU!

This is exactly the problem that I was addressing. The inability to see past your own positions and not find any commonality with the other side. For well over 200 years, this country has run on the premise that compromise is the answer. We are all different and must find a way to work toghether to govern.

'Finding commonality' is PC for 'appeasing for the sake of comity...' That is what brought the US to 9-11 and what brought the US to electing a MARXIST MUSLIM TO THE PRESIDENCY BARELY 7 YEARS AFTER 9-11...

Compromise within the framework of valid principle is one thing... which is what the US did for 130ish years... in the LAST 100 years VALID PRINCIPLE IS THAT WHICH HAS BEEN COMPROMISED.

I am considered a moderate only by those that cannot differentiate btween social conservativism and political conservatism. If you aren't smart enough to know the difference then the Consitution Party is for.

You're a moderate because you can't differentiate between that which is a viable point for compromise and that which is NOT... Thus you readily give way to those who would destroy your nation for the sake of peace... which can only lead to war, which is diametrically opposed to your stated goal... which is what demonstrates your intellectual limitations; thus meaning that your ideology is with those who are either wittingly or unwittingly marching towards the certain destruction of your nation. Meaning your ideology is antithetical to that on which your nation rests... meaning you're ANTI-Your country... OKA: ANTI-American.

In closing I see that you have a quiet sense of morality about you; but you've never been taught that principle is not negotiable and this is because principle is as much a force of nature as that of gravity... try to compromise with gravity and see where that gets you. There is a reason why everyone is not a pilot... and that reason is that the vast majority of people recognize that the compromise with gravity, which is at the core of aviation, comes at a substantial risk... one wherein the odds are strongest in the near certainty that one gets only one mistake when practicing such a compromise and that is due to that one mistake costing one their very life.

Politicians are not pilots... Pilots are trained in and practice the principles of flight; they understand them instinctively and they're taught that at all times the combinations of elements which determine safe flight and unsafe flight are constantly changing and to always be keenly aware of those elements; they're taught that circumstances of flight are fluid and subject to instantaneous change, often without notice; thus they are taught to discipline themselves to avoid flight where the odds of safe flight are against them; they're taught that certain conditions bring the odds of foreseeable, but generally unknown risks and that to fly when such odds are against you, is tantamount to suicide.

The list of Aviation's 'predictable, but unknown risks' are but a molecule of water in the Pacific, compared to that of Politics... Lending credence to leftists is the rough equivalent of taking off and flying over the Rocky Mountains in a light, normally aspirated, single engine, VFR aircraft... in a thunderstorm. To say that such is 'un-advisable,' is a practice in world class under-statement. As you've laid out your thinking in the piece to which I'm responding, you're demonstrating the analogical equivalent of a low time pilot, who thinks that they understand the principles, but fails to respect the potential for predictable but unknown risks... flying boldly into risks which have the very strong likelihood of catastrophic failure; allowing one compromise to require another and another, until those results inevitably end in the smoldering heap that ends their life and that of their passengers and aircraft... one wherein the final footnote reads: PILOT ERROR.

There's an old aviation saw which says: There are old pilots and there are BOLD pilots... but there are no old, BOLD pilots.

Reconsider your reasoning, learn to respect immutable principle and that the disrespect of such will never lead to happiness or long term success; and re-join your nation as an American.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Give it up Pubic Infinity. Who ever mentioned morals? Nobody cares about your interpretation of what is or isn't moral. Do you have the power to determine constitutional validity?

And yet another genius chimes in to support the conclusion that only certain individuals are capable of interpreting the US Constitution...

Now keep in mind folks, that this was PRECISELY the same mindset of the ancients, who stood on the premise that 'only the Priests or the KING or the Emperor could interpret God's will...' God's will being what stood for law back then...

YES INDEEDY... another liberal PROGRESSIVE comes to inform us that we should PROGRESS BACK TO A TIME WHEN ONLY THE VERY FEW were deemed capable of sufficient reason to determine what was and was NOT legally valid... ROFL... Always a great joke. Because it demonstrates just exactly what liberal Progressives are: REGRESSIVE.

And they've now given you A Marxist Muslim as President of the United States...

ROFLMNAO SWEET MOTHER that's hysterical...

 

[jillian]

Says the pompous who thinks every person with a bible knows how to read the Constitutioin and that hundreds of years of constitutional interpretation is wrong.

 

[Sunni Man]

I posted this in another thread, but I wanted to post it again so each and every Republican sees it.

The GOP needs to get back to its "core" values. True conservatism. Goldwater conservatism. This is what the GOP needs to focus on:

-Low taxes with balanced budgets
-Strong national defense
-Engaged foreign policy
-Protection of the environment
-Less government interference in individual lives

These tenets of true political conservatism have been missing from the GOP since the Reagan Revolution. These principles, these conservative principles are now viewed by the Rabid Religous Right as unimportant. Some refer to the Republicans that believe in these principles as RINO's or in some cases liberals. Instead the party is now more worried about homos getting hitched, forcing the Christian God into every crevice of the US Government, and abortion. I loved Ronald Reagan, I really did. He didn't rebuild a damaged Republican Party, he rebuilt a damaged United States. But he hijacked my party in the process and it is time to take it back. I thought McCain was the guy to do it. He preached these very things in 2000 and seemed to forget about them in 2008. These are the principles that matter in government. They are the polar opposite of the ideals of liberalism. They are the polar opposite of proposed policies of President-Elect Obama. These conservative ideals are my ideals and the Republican that demonstrates these ideals wil get my support.

A "real" conservative Republican would also be:

against homo marriage and against abortion

and would be for gun rights and a strong death penalty

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Says the pompous who thinks every person with a bible knows how to read the Constitutioin and that hundreds of years of constitutional interpretation is wrong.

Now folks, As I recall this member has posted claims that she is a Bar certified Attorney at Law... A trained decipherer of legal code... one whose training is steeped in the understanding of reason, rhetorical logic and the construction and deconstruction of argument...

Yet... she has in her last two posts advanced little more than a flurry of flaccid fallacy... She has intentionally misrepresented her opponent’s argument, so as to attack that which she feels more capable of addressing, she's appealed to rhetorical ignorance and she's sought to distract from the argument by attacking her opponent and not their position.

There is not a word in my written position which so much as implies a biblical reference... yet she has projected that such is the case... it's a lie; it the pure embodiment of deceit...

Beyond that she's projected the implication that there is something about the US Constitution which prevents anyone with a fair mastery of the English language from reading the constitution and taking from that reading, a valid, readily reasonable understanding of what it says, thus what it means.

And she's projected, through this fallacious deceit, the ad hominem which cast that most egregious of all appalling shadows onto her opposition, that the opposition is not merely ignorant... but one that suffers an ignorance which is steeped in superstition... A CHRISTIAN! Which is a position which will she feels will appeal to a popular majority.

So our self described Barrister has advanced argument which is wholly invalid and which rests upon unsound reasoning and who no doubt would tell you that she is trained in the law, thus is suitable for consideration as one which is capable of divining ‘constitutional intent’…