Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 8/30/2004 5:47:20 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/18/2004 8:12:49 AM EST by The_Macallan]
FYI:

Interviewed on Tony Snow show this morning, Pat Buchanan says the most important reason to vote for GWBush is because he will probably be nominating FOUR Supreme Court vacancies in the next term.

So despite his disagreements with the "neo-cons", Pat Buchanan (the 'conservative's conservative) favors GWBush.

Both Buchanan and Snow both agreed that there will likely be four (at the MINIMUM) vacancies on the SCOTUS over the next four years - Stevens, Ginsberg, Rehnquist, O'Connor - and maybe more.

With the Republicans retaining control of the Senate and a GWBush win, this is our last best chance to get more constitutionalist justices on the SCOTUS.

I shudder to think what a President Kerry will want to put on the court.


EDITED 10/19/04:



Coming Home

By Patrick J. Buchanan
.
.
.
If Bush loses, his conversion to neoconservatism, the Arian heresy of the American Right, will have killed his presidency. Yet, in the contest between Bush and Kerry, I am compelled to endorse the president of the United States. Why? Because, while Bush and Kerry are both wrong on Iraq, Sharon, NAFTA, the WTO, open borders, affirmative action, amnesty, free trade, foreign aid, and Big Government, Bush is right on taxes, judges, sovereignty, and values. Kerry is right on nothing.
.
.
.
If Kerry wins, leading a party that detests this war, he will be forced to execute an early withdrawal. Should that bring about a debacle, neocons will indict Democrats for losing Iraq. The cakewalk crowd cannot be permitted to get out from under this disaster that easily. They steered Bush into this war and should be made to see it through to the end and to preside over the withdrawal or retreat. Only thus can they be held accountable. Only thus can this neo-Jacobin ideology be discredited in America’s eyes. It is essential for the country and our cause that it be repudiated by the Republican Party formally and finally. The neocons must clean up the mess they have made, themselves, in full public view.

There is a final reason I support George W. Bush. A presidential election is a Hatfield-McCoy thing, a tribal affair. No matter the quarrels inside the family, when the shooting starts, you come home to your own. When the Redcoats approached New Orleans to sunder the Union and Jackson was stacking cotton bales and calling for help from any quarter, the pirate Lafitte wrote to the governor of Louisiana to ask permission to fight alongside his old countrymen. “The Black Sheep wants to come home,” Lafitte pleaded.

It’s time to come home.


Pretty honorable of him. He sticks to his principles yet understands the gravity of the consequences of this election.


Link Posted: 8/30/2004 5:51:04 AM EST
Bush can't get any judges through now.


Do you really think the DumoRats would let him put 4 SC Justices on the bench?


They would rather leave the SC empty.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 5:51:44 AM EST

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
I shudder to think what a President Kerry will want to put on the court.



+1
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 5:52:07 AM EST
I doubt Ginsberg would retire on Bush's watch.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 5:53:58 AM EST
his has occured to me. I think if the GOP takes the Prez and adds a few senate aseats, the Democrats will HAVE to play nice, and add some justices...

Then again, W will probably nominate a bunch of "moderates" to appease the democrats...
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 5:54:54 AM EST

Originally Posted By Mugzilla:
his has occured to me. I think if the GOP takes the Prez and adds a few senate aseats, the Democrats will HAVE to play nice, and add some justices...

Then again, W will probably nominate a bunch of "moderates" to appease the democrats...



He hasn't so far.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 5:57:25 AM EST
this would be good for us, we need him in there for the nomination process, god help us if kerry were to pick the nominees
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 5:58:17 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/30/2004 5:58:59 AM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:
Bush can't get any judges through now.


Do you really think the DumoRats would let him put 4 SC Justices on the bench?


They would rather leave the SC empty.



5-6 US Senate seats flipping to us will break the filibuster.

And GW has been very fond of picking hard-line Conseravatives to fill judge spots...

Link Posted: 8/30/2004 6:01:44 AM EST
Unless a party controls two thirds of the Senate, nobody is going to get any SCOTUS judges' appointments approved.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 6:10:21 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/30/2004 6:10:51 AM EST by EricTheHun]
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 6:15:20 AM EST
Also, remember some of the SC justices have been completely opposite their believed original political position.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 6:23:32 AM EST

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
5-6 US Senate seats flipping to us will break the filibuster.



I doubt we'll get 5-6 more.

Link Posted: 8/30/2004 9:20:13 AM EST

Originally Posted By Mugzilla:
his has occured to me. I think if the GOP takes the Prez and adds a few senate aseats, the Democrats will HAVE to play nice, and add some justices...

Then again, W will probably nominate a bunch of "moderates" to appease the democrats...

You mean moderates like Estrada, Pickering, Rogers-Brown, Tymkovich, Bybee, Owen, McConnell, Kuhl, Pryor....

Link Posted: 8/30/2004 9:30:01 AM EST

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:
Bush can't get any judges through now.


Do you really think the DumoRats would let him put 4 SC Justices on the bench?


They would rather leave the SC empty.



My thoughts exactly.

-LS
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 9:36:57 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/30/2004 9:37:11 AM EST by SJSAMPLE]

Originally Posted By raven:
I doubt Ginsberg would retire on Bush's watch.



Who said "retire"?
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 9:55:22 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/30/2004 9:56:20 AM EST by Sweep]
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 9:59:52 AM EST

Originally Posted By Sweep:

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:

Originally Posted By raven:
I doubt Ginsberg would retire on Bush's watch.



Who said "retire"?



Not funny dude. Real thin line there so I'll just say, "Be careful of what you say."



maybe he meant "old age"
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 11:10:00 AM EST
we need good judges badly
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 12:09:33 PM EST
Ginsburg is gonna die. She has already had cancer real bad.

GunLvr
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 12:27:23 PM EST
I just wish that the SCOTUS applied to Kalifornia........
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 3:06:21 PM EST
I think he meant to say they were going to make him an offer he couldn't refuse!!!


Thats still thin lined ,but that is just exactally the reason Ted Kennedy decided he wanted no more up-grading!!!


Bob
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 3:09:39 PM EST
Yeah Bush does have a knack for appoint judges who uphold the Constitution.

CRC
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 3:27:33 PM EST
Sometimes I lie awake at night and worry more about who would be on the SC rather than who the president would be
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 5:14:16 PM EST
Personally, I dont think either major candidate will give a decent selection for SCOTUS nominees. Since neither Bush nor Kerry seem to be literate within 10ft of the Constitution, I dont expect the nominees will be able to read it either.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 5:16:13 PM EST
I think GWB, if he wins, will have to chose moderate candidates. The same thing if Kerry wins because you know the Repub Senators will screw up the Democratic nominations.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 5:30:39 PM EST

Originally Posted By SS109:
I think GWB, if he wins, will have to chose moderate candidates. The same thing if Kerry wins because you know the Repub Senators will screw up the Democratic nominations.




Not really.

If Bush wins, he will <ack>compromise<ack> with the DumoRats and pick moderately liberal judges so he can get them confirmed.


If Kerry won, the Republican Senate would roll over like the little bitches they are and pass anyone he nominates - Michael Moore as a Supreme Court Justice!
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 5:36:00 PM EST

Originally Posted By MoparMike:
Personally, I dont think either major candidate will give a decent selection for SCOTUS nominees. Since neither Bush nor Kerry seem to be literate within 10ft of the Constitution, I dont expect the nominees will be able to read it either.

You haven't been paying attention to GWBush's strict-constitutionalist nominations that have already been confirmed or those that have been stalled.

Link Posted: 8/30/2004 5:39:41 PM EST
ETH for the supreme court...

Lets just hope they dont get any cases about secession.

Link Posted: 8/30/2004 5:50:31 PM EST

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Originally Posted By MoparMike:
Personally, I dont think either major candidate will give a decent selection for SCOTUS nominees. Since neither Bush nor Kerry seem to be literate within 10ft of the Constitution, I dont expect the nominees will be able to read it either.hr
You haven't been paying attention to GWBush's strict-constitutionalist nominations that have already been confirmed or those that have been stalled.



But I have been paying attention to how he has been "defending and upholding" the Constitution. Someone with a grasp of the Constitution doesn't sign something he deems unConstiutional. And someone with a grasp of the Constitution would be revolted by the contents of the "Patriot" Act. Sorry, but the man inspires no confidence within me where the Constitution is concerned.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 8:02:51 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/30/2004 8:04:15 PM EST by The_Macallan]

Originally Posted By MoparMike:

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Originally Posted By MoparMike:
Personally, I dont think either major candidate will give a decent selection for SCOTUS nominees. Since neither Bush nor Kerry seem to be literate within 10ft of the Constitution, I dont expect the nominees will be able to read it either.

You haven't been paying attention to GWBush's strict-constitutionalist nominations that have already been confirmed or those that have been stalled.

But I have been paying attention to how he has been "defending and upholding" the Constitution. Someone with a grasp of the Constitution doesn't sign something he deems unConstiutional.

Lame.

You refer to "selection for SCOTUS nominees".

I reply with "strict-constitutionalist nominees that have already been confirmed".

You pull out a red herring.

Very lame.

But like I said, it's pretty clear you're ignorant regarding GWBush's strict-constitutionalist judiciary appointees. Think you can stay on topic?


Originally Posted By MoparMike:
And someone with a grasp of the Constitution would be revolted by the contents of the "Patriot" Act.



Whatever.


So - do you think Badnarik is gonna crack the 0.33% this time?

Link Posted: 8/30/2004 8:09:24 PM EST

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
Whatever.


So - do you think Badnarik is gonna crack the 0.33% this time? hr

Personally, I dont care. I will have voted for someone who represents me, which Bush does not. I am sure you have heard the horse-race/election analogy, so I wont waste your time with it again.


And give me a link for these "strict-Constitutionalists" and their nominations. I have heard nothing about it.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 8:12:33 PM EST

Originally Posted By MoparMike:
And give me a link for these "strict-Constitutionalists" and their nominations. I have heard nothing about it.



Judge Jay S. Bybee
Nominated to: Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Status of nomination: Hearing 2/05/03; Confirmed


Jay S. Bybee is a staunch believer in states' rights who has shown hostility to civil rights, especially the equal protection rights of gays and lesbian.

Bybee's arguments that Congress’s powers should be limited have gone far further than any decision by the current conservative Supreme Court.

Bybee's views of states' rights are so extreme that he has argued that the constitutional amendment passed in 1913 allowing the people rather than state legislatures to elect U.S. senators was a mistake because it did not adequately protect states' rights.

Bybee wrote that this amendment took away one of states' most potent weapons to limit the power of the federal government and that limiting the federal government and upholding states' rights was more important than giving the people more say in their government.
.
.
.
Jay Bybee has combed obscure sections of the Constitution to argue in favor of states' rights. Even after the Supreme Court struck down sections of federal statutes prohibiting guns near schools and requiring states not to discriminate, Bybee argued, "If the Court is actually committed to constitutional federalism, it must prevent further evisceration of real state authority."

He has argued that Congress has almost no power to enact criminal laws, a position that would raise doubts about the constitutionality of federal drug laws, gun laws and a variety of other criminal statutes.


Can you believe GWBush actually put this radical conservative on the NINTH Circuit Court of Appeals - such a respected and revered court sullied by this rightwing extremist.

One can only hope GW and the Repubs don't try to nominate someone like this to the Supreme Court!

Link Posted: 8/30/2004 8:13:18 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/30/2004 8:22:14 PM EST by The_Macallan]

Originally Posted By MoparMike:
And give me a link for these "strict-Constitutionalists" and their nominations. I have heard nothing about it.


Professor Michael McConnell
Nominated to: Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit
Status of nomination: Confirmed 11/15/2002


According to NYU professor Ronald Dworkin, "McConnell had 'radical opinions' on abortion and other issues."
Reverend Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State says that he makes "Bork look moderate."

Professor McConnell signed a petition calling on Congress to pass a Constitutional amendment outlawing all abortions, including those in cases of rape and incest. He opposed the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, arguing that this protection of women, doctors, and clinic staff from potentially violent protestors is unconstitutional, a position rejected by every court to have considered the issue.
.
.
.
Professor McConnell wrote the brief for the Boy Scouts in the Supreme Court case of Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, arguing that the Boy Scouts had a constitutional right to discriminate against gays even though such discrimination was illegal under New Jersey law.
Professor McConnell argued that: the Boy Scouts "believ[e] that homosexual conduct, along with other sex outside of marriage, is immoral . . ."; "Boy Scouting does not want to promote homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of behavior" ; and, if the Boy Scouts lost, they would be forced to allow atheists to join as well. In addition, Professor McConnell argued that the Boy Scouts had a right to continue discriminating against homosexuals because state governments do not have a "compelling interest" in preventing such discrimination.
.
.
.
Professor McConnell has argued that Congress did not have the power to [specifically] outlaw crimes against women under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Sooooo... he doesn't believe in the "compelling interest" rationale for judicial activism?

Let's just hope GWBush doesn't choose him to replace Sandra O'Connor someday!!

God only knows how far right GWBush wants to pack the Supreme Court.

Link Posted: 8/30/2004 8:14:12 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/30/2004 8:20:48 PM EST by The_Macallan]

Originally Posted By MoparMike:
And give me a link for these "strict-Constitutionalists" and their nominations. I have heard nothing about it.





Bush Selects 2 for Bench, Adding Fuel to Senate Fire

WASHINGTON, July 25 — President Bush escalated his fight with Senate Democrats over judicial nominations today by naming two new candidates for judgeships for the federal appeals court in Washington, widely regarded as second in importance only to the Supreme Court.

Mr. Bush nominated Brett M. Kavanaugh, an associate White House counsel, and Janice R. Brown, a California Supreme Court justice, to the 11th and 12th seats on the appeals court.
.
.
.
Mr. Kavanaugh, at 38, would be one of the youngest members of the federal appeals bench. He is assistant to the president and staff secretary, and has been responsible for marshaling the fleet of largely conservative judicial nominees the president has sent to the Senate, resulting in angry battles with Democrats. But he is probably better known as a senior assistant to Kenneth W. Starr, the independent counsel who investigated President and Mrs. Clinton for a variety of issues.

Mr. Kavanaugh was one of the principal authors of the "Starr report" that argued that President Clinton deserved to be impeached because of how he dealt with his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky, a one-time White House intern.
.
.
.
Justice Brown, who is African-American, wrote the majority opinion in 2000 interpreting California's referendum against affirmative action in a way that greatly pleased conservatives.

A seat on the District of Columbia Circuit would put her in the on-deck circle for a nomination to the Supreme Court. Three of the current justices were elevated from that court.

Justice Brown, 54, has been touted intensively in conservative legal circles as someone whose judicial philosophy would match that of Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, both of whom Mr. Bush said would be his models for any Supreme Court appointments
.
.
.
Senator Charles E. Schumer, a New York Democrat and member of the Judiciary Committee, said, "These nominations are further proof, as if any were needed, that the administration has no interest in putting forth nominees who are moderate representatives of mainstream America." [>Q]



Janice Brown is a conservative African-American who's ruled against affirmative action and abortion rights.

Here's a few recent decisions by her regarding the RKBA in California:

========================================================================

* Court decision cripples assault weapons ban

6/29/01
Judges cannot declare firearms illegal under the state's assault-weapons ban law, the California Supreme Court ruled Thursday in a decision the dissenting chief justice said created a "loophole" in the 1989 act.
Justice Janice Rogers Brown, agreeing with arguments made in the case by the National Rifle Association, wrote that the 1991 provisions - enacted to ban the proliferation of generic versions of outlawed weapons - was too vague for gun owners to know which of the "copycat" weapons of the Russian-made "AK series" were illegal.
Without explicitly listing each weapon, Brown wrote, "ordinary law-abiding citizens could suddenly find themselves ... subject to prosecution."
The immediate fallout of Thursday's decision is that an untold number of copycat weapons to the AK series are now legal in California.

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

* Calif. Municipalities Can Ban Gun Shows
(link expired)
4/23/2002
The California Supreme Court ruled that counties and cities in the state are allowed to ban gun shows on government property, Justice Janice Rogers Brown, the one judge dissenting, said that the municipality implementing the local ban "exceeds its regulatory authority."

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

* State Assault Gun Ban Survives Court Test
(link expired)
February 22, 2001
In an opinion by Justice Janice Rogers Brown, the court said the Legislature was entitled to conclude that banning certain guns would make California safer. She also said judges acted within their powers by reviewing the attorney general's proposed additions to the forbidden list.

[She didn't necessarily agree or disagree with what the Legislature was doing - she simply affirmed they had the authority (under California's Constitution) to do it.]

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

* California Justices Uphold State's Assault Weapons Ban
(link expired)
29 June 2000
"For good or ill," wrote Justice Janice Rogers Brown for the court, "the Legislature stood up and was counted on this issue, one of the most contentious in modern society." Brown strongly rejected any suggestion that the state Constitution protects the rights of Californians to own weapons.
"No mention is made [in the state Constitution] of a right to bear arms," Brown wrote.

[Again, she says she's not deciding whether the law was good or bad - just that it was constitutional because California has no RKBA in their state Constitution.]
========================================================================

So I'm not sure where Justice Brown stands on the RKBA, but she sure seems to uphold a strict interpretation of her state's constitution.

She'll certainly displease a lot of moderates if she does the same to the US Constitution.

Currently Janice Rogers-Brown is being filibustered - one that will CERTAINLY be broken as soon as the election is over.

BTW, the buzz is that she's on the short list for SCOTUS nominees also.


Just WHAT is GW thinking?????


Link Posted: 8/30/2004 8:15:00 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/30/2004 9:14:31 PM EST by The_Macallan]

Originally Posted By MoparMike:
And give me a link for these "strict-Constitutionalists" and their nominations. I have heard nothing about it.



Timothy Tymkovich
Nominated to: Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit
Confirmed: 4/01/2003

Tymkovich is an active member of the Federalist Society, and a former member of the Independence Institute, which during his tenure as a member advocated for laws allowing Coloradoans to carry concealed weapons, and against affirmative action in higher education.

Tymkovich intervened in a case to defend the rights of gun owners against a city of Denver ordinance regulating a narrow class of dangerous assault weapons. Tymkovich argued that "the City and County of Denver does not have the authority to regulate all firearms identified as assault weapons because the regulation is a matter of statewide concern." The Colorado Supreme Court, held that the ordinance did not violate the state constitutional right of Coloradoans to bear arms because the ordinance is "reasonably related to a legitimate governmental interest and constitutes a valid exercise of the state's police power..."

As Colorado's Solicitor General, Tymkovich represented the state of Colorado in the Supreme Court case of Romer v. Evans, arguing that an amendment to Colorado's constitution barring the state and municipalities from taking action to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination was permissible under the U.S. Constitution.

Tymkovich also defended an amendment to the Colorado Constitution that required the state not to fund abortions in the case of rape and incest. Testifying before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Tymkovich insisted that federal law "did not require...States [to] pay for any abortions."


In March 1996, Tymkovich testified in support of the Tenth Amendment Enforcement Act of 1996, which would have instructed the courts to presume that all federal laws were unconstitutional when they allegedly infringed on states' rights. Tymkovich objected to federal environmental regulations, Medicaid requirements, and the motor voter law as too burdensome on the states. Tymkovich also argued that the bill should go further and require that all existing federal regulations be terminated if they did not comport with states' rights principles. Congress never passed the bill.


Oh Lord! Not ANOTHER States-Rights/Gun-Nut/Right-Wing WHACKO on the Federal Judiciary!!!

This is starting to look ugly!

Doesn't he know there's not supposed to be any CONSERVATIVES appointed by Tweedle-dum or the Republicrats???

Doesn't he know there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans???

These right-wing whackos are on the Federal Bench FOR LIFE now!!!
And are one step away from the SCOTUS!!!


This is NOT AT ALL what I was thinking GWBush would do when I voted for him and for the Republican-controlled Senate!!!



Link Posted: 8/30/2004 8:16:58 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/30/2004 8:18:02 PM EST by The_Macallan]

Originally Posted By MoparMike:
And give me a link for these "strict-Constitutionalists" and their nominations. I have heard nothing about it.



Judge Bork: Judicial Activism Is Going Global

Bork said until the Senate is more densely populated with Republicans able to appoint judges who favor strict interpretations of the law and the Constitution, the trend toward global judicial activism will continue on its current trajectory.

I don’t see any present prospect of stopping what is taking place," he said.


So all you head-on-the-sand idiots who keep voting for Michael Badnarik or Howard Phillips or "George Mason" or Daffy Duck because you don't want the "lesser of two evils" listen closely - The Most Conservative, Constitutionalist Justice Ever Nominated To The SCOTUS In The Last 60 Years Gave You All A Warning - "FILL THE SENATE WITH REPUBLICANS".
Or else you might as well just vote for the Democrat.

It wasn't the Democrats or the Libertarians or the Constitution Party who nominated and backed Scalia, Thomas, Bork and all the other strict constitutionalist justices recently nominated to federal benches.

In this election, you have four choices:

1. Take Robert Bork's advice and get more Republicans elected.

2. Vote for the Democrat

3. Write in "Patrick Henry" on the ballot.

4. Stay home on election day.

The results of numbers 2-4 will be the same.

Link Posted: 8/30/2004 9:21:59 PM EST

Originally Posted By MoparMike:
And give me a link for these "strict-Constitutionalists" and their nominations. I have heard nothing about it.




Link Posted: 8/30/2004 9:26:14 PM EST
Too bad Buchanan isn't running, I'd vote for him over the two assclowns we have to choose from now.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 9:28:27 PM EST

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:
Too bad Buchanan isn't running, I'd vote for him over the two assclowns we have to choose from now.

Let him waste your vote again?

What marvelous things did Buchanan do with all his support he gained in the '92 and '96 campaigns?

Link Posted: 8/30/2004 9:30:51 PM EST

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:
Too bad Buchanan isn't running, I'd vote for him over the two assclowns we have to choose from now.

Let him waste your vote again?

What marvelous things did Buchanan do with all his support he gained in the '92 and '96 campaigns?




Personally, I don't think ANY vote is wasted.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 9:35:57 PM EST

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
Let him waste your vote again?

What marvelous things did Buchanan do with all his support he gained in the '92 and '96 campaigns?

hr
You still haven't gotten it. Voting isnt about who wins and loses. Its about giving your vote to the person who best represents your beliefs. If that is Bush, then fine. If that is Kerry, fine. If its Badnarik, fine. If its Bart Fucking Simpson, more power to you. The only time you are throwing away your vote is if you vote for someone who does not represent you.

Educate others on what your candidate has done. But dont flame and judge if they dont agree that those things are representative of them or worth changing their vote. But I am starting to think that ARFCOM is the wrong forum for such polite behavior. his)
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 9:37:11 PM EST

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:
Too bad Buchanan isn't running, I'd vote for him over the two assclowns we have to choose from now.

Let him waste your vote again?

What marvelous things did Buchanan do with all his support he gained in the '92 and '96 campaigns?


Personally, I don't think ANY vote is wasted.

That's too bad.

So what did Buchanan do with all the support he gained in '92 and '96?

(answer: NOTHING - he wasted their votes)

Link Posted: 8/30/2004 9:40:37 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/30/2004 9:42:46 PM EST by Lazyshooter]
I agree that at least two and probably three of those mentioned will likely retire and having John Kerry make those appointments would be a bad thing. I've actually been one of the few people thinking about this, I guess, because I never seem to see anything on the news about it.

The sad thing is, that most of the american people aren't thinking about the Supreme Court, or the people that are on it or those who may step down, or those who will replace them.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 9:42:52 PM EST

Originally Posted By MoparMike:
Educate others on what your candidate has done.

That's what I tried to do with you. But apparently you weren't interested in being educated - just defending your position.



Originally Posted By MoparMike:
But dont flame and judge if they dont agree that those things are representative of them or worth changing their vote. But I am starting to think that ARFCOM is the wrong forum for such polite behavior.

Who was "flaming" you in this thread?

What the hell are you talking about????



Originally Posted By MoparMike:
At this point, today, I think I would stay home if Bush and Kerry were my ONLY two choices. Its like chosing between 5 and 10 bee stings. I'll take none, thanks. (Yet one more apparently heretical statement on ARFCOM...)

Staying home increases the chances of getting 10 bee stings - but no matter what you do, you'll NEVER get "none" by staying home.



Link Posted: 8/30/2004 9:47:34 PM EST

Originally Posted By MoparMike:

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
Let him waste your vote again?

What marvelous things did Buchanan do with all his support he gained in the '92 and '96 campaigns?


You still haven't gotten it. Voting isnt about who wins and loses. Its about giving your vote to the person who best represents your beliefs.

Wrong.

Voting for President is not a poll on how I feeeeeeeeeeeel - it's about making a decision that will have real consequences.

In the real pragmatic world, the lessor of two evils is reality. People who voted for Nader in Florida did not "send a message" to Gore, they sent GWBush to the White House.

A third-party vote will have only ONE effect on the result of the election - it will get the guy you want LEAST elected.

And that's all I care about - what is the RESULT.


Link Posted: 8/30/2004 9:50:17 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/30/2004 9:51:35 PM EST by MoparMike]

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Originally Posted By MoparMike:
Educate others on what your candidate has done.

That's what I tried to do with you. But apparently you weren't interested in being educated - just defending your position. hinking.gif

The only position I have defended in this thread is the position that a vote is wasted only when you cast it for someone who doesn't represent you. I would be throwing away my vote if I voted for anyone but Badnarik right now.



Originally Posted By MoparMike:
But dont flame and judge if they dont agree that those things are representative of them or worth changing their vote. But I am starting to think that ARFCOM is the wrong forum for such polite behavior. hr

Who was "flaming" you in this thread?

What the hell are you talking about????


Ok, not flaming. But you most certainly wouldnt win any "teacher of the year awards" with the attitude that you teach with. Btw, I will read those tomorrow. I have to go to bed.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 10:00:31 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/30/2004 10:02:19 PM EST by The_Macallan]
In actuality I DID waste my vote on a staunch conservative Republican once - his name was Pat Buchanan. I wasted the vote because HE wasted my vote. He did NOTHING with the support he built during the '90s.

HE blew it for conservatives in the Republican Party.
HE did more to damage the conservative wing of the Republican party than anthing GWBush has done...
THIS is part of the reason why conservatism is dead in the Republican Party:

Pat Buchanan was a senior advisor to three Republican Presidents.

From 1966 through 1974, he was assistant and confidant to Richard Nixon. He traveled with President Nixon as one of the 15-member official delegation to open up the People's Republic of China, and he was present at Mr. Nixon's final Moscow-Yalta summit in the summer of 1974.

In 1974 he also served as assistant to Gerald Ford.

From 1985 to 1987, he was White House Communications Director for Ronald Reagan.
He was with President Reagan at both his first and second summits with Mikhail Gorbachev, at Geneva and Reykjavik. He also gained recognition as an inspiring speechwriter for the Republican Party.

Pat Buchanan challenged incumbent President George Bush for the 1992 Republican presidential nomination. Buchanan gained about 25% of the Republican votes while running in 33 state primaries.

In 1996, Buchanan attempted to run for the Republican presidential nomination again against Bob Dole. Even though he lost again, Buchanan was even more successful this time - winning the primary in New Hampshire, coming very close in other states and gaining over 30% of the Republican vote.

After briefly returning to TV to do talk shows once again, Buchanan decided to resign from the Republican Party in 1999, and run for president in 2000 under the Reform Party's nomination.

In the 2000 election, Buchanan received less then 1% of America's vote. After the election, Buchanan announced that he would not run for president again, but he would continue to preach to the public his conservative agenda.

And where is he now?

{crickets}


He was GAINING momentum and INCREASING his support within the Republican Party. And in the midst of his rising power and influence within the party- he LEFT.

Dammit he was GAINING support. He was starting to WIN elections. He should have stuck with it! THAT'S what it gonna take to turn this country around. So HE couldn't be the Number One Standard-bearer for the Republican Party - so is THAT a reason to quit the party??? His ego got the best of him and he really hurt all the momentum he was building in the party. Same with the "Young Turks" in the '94 Congress. They thought the highest leadership positions in the House were theirs just because they showed up.

Many 3rd & 4th-Party folks who vote for their local dog-catcher to be President hold up people like Patrick Henry or George Mason as their standard of American patriots who stood up for their principles, did not compromise them and always "voted their conscience". Henry even voted AGAINST the US Constitution because it didn't contain the BOR.

All that may be true about Henry and Mason - but ya' know what - neither of them ever had a chance in hell of becoming President and yet the fringe-party-folks today fail to see how vitally important and significant Henry and Mason were in the lower offices that they DID hold.

Do you think people like Fineswine, Schumer or Lautenberg have little influence in the course of what goes on in Congress?

Do you think people like Pelosi, Waxman, Rangel and Conyers have no say in the Democratic Party's direction or goals? And do you think they all got there all at once?

Do you think that just because The Corpulent Tick lost his bid for the Presidency in '80 to Carter that he is now irrelevant in his Party's political landscape?

Remember, he LOST his bid to become the Democratic Presidential nominee and yet look at where he is now! Hell, today he's practically RUNNING the entire Democratic Party!

Or how about Ronald Reagan? He lost TWICE in running for Presidential nominee of the Republican Party, once in '68 and again in '76. And, well, you know the rest of the story with him...

But by comparison, where's Pat Buchanan today?? {crickets}

What's the difference here? The difference is that Kennedy and Reagan did not QUIT after failing but instead continued working within the party to gain more power and supporters.

The problem with the 3rd-party fringe-mentality is that they always want to stampede for the highest office in the land when no one from their party has even proven they can even be effective Mayors, Governors and Senators let alone President!

They abandon reason, quit working IN the Republican party and start working AGAINST the Republican party. That splits conservative voters, divides the base and weakens THEIR OWN influence in the advancement of conservatism.

They have no support because they haven't WORKED for it and they haven't EARNED it. Good ideas don't implement themselves - it takes political experience and political leadership and the 3rd Party candidates have neither.

Goldwater didn't quit when he lost. Reagan didn't either. They continued to work WITHIN the party to get their principles advanced to the forefront of the Republican agenda.

We HAD a great chance back in '94 - we HAD secured a solid foothold in the Republican Party with the "Republican Revolution" but what did some of the "Young Turks" do? Folks like Bill Paxon and Susan Molinari stampeded for the top leadership position before they had secured and expanded their support in Congress - they got impatient and charged ahead and waged war WITHIN the Republican Party when they should have spent the next few years BUILDING on their success and GROWING their support which would then allow them to RISE to positions of leadership rather than "take-over".

Now they're gone, the "Republican Revolution" has lost many of it's up&coming leaders because they were too intent on gaining CONTROL rather than gaining SUPPORT.

Same with the 3rd Party fringe-voters.




Link Posted: 8/30/2004 10:05:16 PM EST
So you are saying I should write in Ron Paul? He is a Republican, after all...



And with that, I am actually going to bed.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 10:07:00 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/30/2004 10:07:47 PM EST by The_Macallan]
[Al Gore]

{ Sigh! }

[/Al Gore]

Link Posted: 8/30/2004 10:10:18 PM EST

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
A third-party vote will have only ONE effect on the result of the election - it will get the guy you want LEAST elected.






Thats what you WANT us to believe.
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 2:00:36 AM EST

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
A third-party vote will have only ONE effect on the result of the election - it will get the guy you want LEAST elected.






Thats what you WANT us to believe.




Yes, he WANTS you to believe the truth, but you stubbornly cling to a lie.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top