AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Cyclotroll,
There are several errors in your logical process above, I wonder if you can figure out what they are without having to have them pointed out to you?



No, jokes about SodaCrakers peg leg show that Yankee has a healthy sense of humor... something you have never never had.

No, you have not provided any reason to support your conclusion that she has an excellent record.

You have provided good information that shows her have excellent qualifications.

Maybe you don't understand the difference.

Sorry I asked you. You must be having a bad day.

Why do you say that? My day is perfectly fine.

What do you consider the difference between those two to be? My guess is it revolves around your agreement or disagreement with how she rules in various cases. However, I do not consider that to be a meaningful measurement, as it really shows nothing more than one's partisanship; it doesn't tell us much about her. Her qualifications are her record for all intents and purposes.

You are incorrect when you state that there are questions as to whether or not she will be confirmed; there really are not, the Dems already have many more votes than they need, and this whole thing is just an exercise to see how many Latino votes the Republican party can manage to lose next cycle.

Cycloptichorn

She is a Latino?

What do you think?

Perhaps you could spread your useless bitching to this thread as well. Or perhaps recommend a Tax break for the rich, or something shocking and original like you usually do...

Cycloptichorn

This is very instructive because I understand that you're comparing the relative worthiness of having discussion with a foolish person and pulling teeth, i.e. one is worse than the other.

I think she is a Latina.

Perhaps you think she has something you lack... balls.

Very instructive indeed. As Foxfyre would say: I defy anyone to show where joefromchicago has ever compared Okie to Manson.

djjd62 welcome!
You wrote

It would be interesting to hear specifics as to what they meant by "more moderate direction". Specifically: move from where to where regarding what specific issues. They may be actually reaffirming what MAC's here are saying or they may not but without specifics we don't know (I don't mean to demean your post here just point that the young conservatives need to be more specific).

Such specific positions may or may not be agreed upon here by MAC's (Modified American Conservatives). Also they may be mistaking a move towards "moderation" as an attempt to placate (and therefore convince) those independents with an eye towards getting elected and then being in a position to change everything to that which is more to there liking--like Obama did.

This would certainly be a mistake. One only needs history to see what the American public did to the "Republicans" in Congress Re the 2006 elections after their sabbatical from those principles resulting in their spendthrift/earmark fest. MAC principles are those of the Founders and have history testifying as to their legitimacy, we should stick to them because they built this great country.

However, if those young conservatives were referring to such issues as abortion, gay marriage, and immigration, where me and Foxfyre disagree somewhat, I would concede that the first two should be deemphasized and the third compromised. Another BIG MISTAKE those Republicans and GEORGE BUSH made was the debacle of Terry Schiavo and the spectacle of all these guys spending taxpayer money to come back to Washington just to pass specific legislation to negate the carefully and long considered decision of one lonely man regarding the fate of his wife. Being kind I would see this as bad form.

I can also see them trying to distance themselves from personalities that seem lightening rods for controversy, such as Rush and Cheney but when they are taken in context much of their so called radicalism vaporizes and, in Rush's case, only bad taste remains. The left hates those like Rush, Coulter, Hannity, and Beck. Yes their style is quite "entertaining" but when you read past their disdain for the left you see their reasoning is solidly based in what they feel the Founding Fathers, through our Constitution, meant for our country. The left has tried numerous times to silence these political critics thru serpentine legal methods (Equal Time for ‘everyone’s’ view laws). This, of course, demonstrates their knowledge of economics whereby those stations so required to present equal air time would be financially ruined thereby silencing all conservative thought. Al Frankin ,via his radio talk show, tried to do it on his own merit but failed because the show proved economically unviable (He should ask why), But then it looks like he is about to become a U.S. Senator. But they still have Bill Maher.

Cheney has been successfully painted by the left as the torture guy that, in his off hours, is in cahoots with the big oil companies and all other manner of fat cats, supposedly to America's detriment. His position, recently taken, is in support of America in terms of security
( http://usconservatives.about.com/od/capitalpunishment/a/Cheney_AEI_Speech.htm ). The left says he tortured but how many of his critics were in that underground bunker that fateful day on 11 September 2001? The Left released Top Secret memos showing not illegal torture (this is manifest in Congressional refusal to outlaw those methods of illegal 'torture' because doing so would reveal that it was not illegal ‘torture’ previously) but extraordinary interrogation methods (EIM) that Cheney and CIA heads say produced actionable intelligence. Those methods are no longer secret because Obama so decreed but those redacted parts of the memos that revealed the results of such EIM Obama's Admin says are "Ambiguous" regarding such results, but so far, refuses to decree such redactions no longer Top Secret, thereby preventing full transparency. Why not let us see them? Nancy Pelosi says she wasn't or didn't this or that. Cheney asks to see all the memos, Carl Levin demanded an investigation Bill Kristol concurs and Nancy then proceeds to relate fairy tales, trips over her own words then decides to stop digging in her hole born of stupidity and clam up.

My point is MAC principles have been from the beginning of our history those, that up until now, we have flourished by. Moderation of principles? How do we do that? Why would we do that? Maybe its more important for us MAC's to concentrate on those select principles of life, liberty, and economic pursuit enabled by a strong but limited central government that meets those few enumerated powers limited to it by our Constitution leaving its citizens responsible for their own personal welfare and thereby preserving the individual freedoms so many have sacrificed for.

Sorry for such a long response.

JM

So, James Morrison, you are going to continue to dodge the two questions i asked you? They're simple, they could be answered with yes or no.

The leader of the Republican party today displayed a great deal of Racism on his radio show -



What does his ethnicity have to do with anything? Nothing, unless you are a Conservative, in which case it means you didn't earn what you have unless you are a white male.

Cycloptichorn

This is so much tripe. If Americans had traditionally been conservative, and unwilling to moderate their conservatism, there would have been no revolution. People would not have fought in their millions, and died in their hundreds of thousands to end slavery. There were be no unemployment compensation, no disability, no retirement pensions, no social security, no workers' compensation. What sort of strong devotion to "select principles of life, liberty and ec0nomic pursuit" justified not only tolerating slavery, but enshrining it in the constitution? (And "economic pursuit" is not mentioned in any founding document--despite right-wing propaganda, no part of the constitution enshrines unbridled capitalism.)

Jesus, why don't you get a marching band to play God Bless America in the background while you recite that idiotic rant?

I agree!

Now, Foxfyre, I want to continue discussing with you what we do not agree on. Namely, what is the most effective way for us to rid ourselves of Obama's wealth-transfer-itis.

I think we hold the stronger hand, but some of us fail to realize that because too many are suckered into to all the MAL bluff and bluster. If our position were as weak as the MALs claim, the MALs wouldn't be so quick to respond everytime we question the validity of what they claim is true. Also, they wouldn't bother with their unrelenting slander about what we think and do.

You in particular are repeatedly slandered by the MALs, because they know that the things you think and say should be done to save our nation, will work. What the MALs are doing and rooting for, will not work to save our nation. The MALs want to replace our rule of law with their own rule of law that serves only their sick quest for power.

The Tea Party people here in Texas that I talk to daily know what they want and are angrily complaining about the failure of the Republicans to move to impeach Osama, or, failing that, for Texas to move to secede from the USA. What they require are Republicans who will directly oppose what the Democrats are doing with true Republican solutions not just platitudes. They are fed up with Republicans that think the Republican way back to power is to emulate the MALs in transferring wealth, but transfer less of it.

The current and future fury of the MALs is no more intimidating to these Texans and me than dirt on our shoes. When the MAL garbage is cleaned up, there will be time enough to clean our shoes.

Obama and his administration are breaking the law. If they are allowed to continue this abandonment of our nation's rule of law for their own, our nation's rule of law will collapse. We must focus our efforts on a single objective now. We must now advocate impeachment of Obama. Each of us must begin working to convince the congress to move and debate the impeachment of Obama. Such debate will be more effective in educating Americans about the danger Obama and his programs are to the well being of all Americans, than a stream of uncoordinated verbal and written editorials about a multiplicity of objectives.

*guffaw*



An accidental slip, or are you just being a prick?

Reflects poorly on you either way.

The next several years - in which Obama is likely to be re-elected, let alone not impeached - are going to be very difficult for you, Ican.

Cycloptichorn

Frankly, if Tejas does leave, i say, don't let the door hit ya in the ass.

What is really hilarious is a call for impeachment. The final paragraph of Article One, Section Two reads:

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Right now, a Republican Representative couldn't get his sister-in-law appointed postmistress, never mind bring a bill of impeachment.

The comic relief in this thread is priceless.

Funny how it seems you twist facts up.

Richard Steele is the Leader of the RNC who just happens to be a Black man.

Rush Limbaugh, as far as I know, has a radio program and has used questionable comments on his show. He claims to be a Conservative (Not sure I agree with him on that or anything else).

Yet, there have been several other radio hosts who claim to be liberal who spout similar trash. Al Sharpton, for example has been accused of spouting racist venom over the air.

Do you always tell just one side of the story?

Don't worry, thats nothing new.

By the way, the RNC chairman is Michael Steele.

Welcome to the forum, Yankee, or maybe I just never noticed you before.

How about his sister?

Impeachment "right now" is not the objective. Impeachment debate in the House within days is the objective. Obama is generating evidence daily that it is in everyone's interest who wants to preserve America's rule of law to make impeachment debate happen within days. Daily development of the required critical mass is well underway.

Setanta, thanks for your queries and let's examine your questions:

I can see why genoves has adopted his method of posting to those he disparages by starting off with insults to put them on the back foot, as it were. This to discourage or belittle those who would disagree and be so bold as to voice their own opinions. But genoves posts arguments, facts, and links to support his thoughts and beliefs and has never implied idiocy to my thoughts even though he may disagree. I see only invective in genoves posts as a response to invective which may or may not be supported by bad reasoning. Is it right? Apparantly, it is for him and since I believe in MAC principles and see no laws being broken its not my concern. Sometimes I actually feel sorry for you when he starts on you, so, I hope you have him on Ignore it does seem so.Your first question is only so in a grammatical sense. But it 'asks' in bad faith. Its very text assumes that my answer would be based in some "kind of idiocy ". Further why would you want an answer so based? Why waste your time asking any question of mine if you had already predetermined that it was of 'idiotic' content. I can construct a perfectly legitimate branch of Mathematics that always resolves the sum of 2 and 2 to be that of 5 (This can easily be done) would you find this interesting or even useful? So you can see why I find this question, well, questionable.

As to

Welcome to A2K and the thread Yankee. As I have advised others, be sure your bullet proofing is in place and your bullshit meter in working order and wade right on in.

You are correct that the fact she has been a DA is constructive in knowing that she has such experience as have thousands of others, but to assess her qualifications I would think it important to know how well she did her job as assessed by her peers in order to list that as a valid qualification.

The fact that she has been a judge handling many cases is also constructive in judging her experience, but I would think it important to know how well she did her job as a judge as assessed by her peers in order to list that as a valid qualification.

The fact that she did well in college is an interesting fact on her resume, but I would think it important to know how she perceives what she learned and what she considers the role of a supreme court justice in order to list that as a valid qualification.

It goes back to the illustration that Sowell used. The fact that she is Latina or 'struggled' or 'wise' or 'has empathy' should mean nothing re her qualifications to be a Supreme Court justice as many others are Latina but are not qualifed, and many have 'struggled' and are not qualified, and many are wise in many ways that do not qualify them to be a Supreme Court justice and many have empathy who would make terrible Supreme Court justices.

What should qualify her as a Supreme Court justice is proven acceptable judicial temperament coupled with demonstrated understanding, and verifiable track record that she applies principles of the existing law fairly, equitably, and without prejudice.